Darkroom recommendation, digital or traditional?

[rob_landry]

Okay, guys and gals, I need some advice on a darkroom setup and need

to decide on whether to go the digital route or with a traditional

darkroom.

 

I started dabbling with the digital darkroom a few years ago, but

time was against me and my equipment is now severely outdated and

will need to be replaced. I shoot slides in 35mm and B&W and

transparencies in 4x5. My current digital darkroom consists of an old

AMD 500 MHz machine with 256 megs of RAM with an old Minolta Scan

Dual film scanner and an Epson 1200 printer. It was fine for getting

my feet wet but the quality was average at best and doesn't address

the 4x5.

 

So, I guess I would need a whole new setup for digital or

traditional. I like the digital darkroom but I fear that route would

be seriously expensive especially considering my love of 4x5.

 

What would I need to start making prints traditionally and could it

be done more cost effectively than the digital route? What about

printing color traditionally? I've printed plenty of B&W in a

darkroom years ago, but never color. There isn't a whole lot of

information on traditional color printing here on Photo.net. Space is

not a concern and I do have a Jobo CPP-2.

 

For digital, I've been considering the Epson 4870 (the price is

right) but this still does not address 35mm and I would still need a

printer capable of doing 4x5 justice and I'd like to be able to print

up to at least 16x20.

[link]

FWIW, I'm still using my photo 1200. I shoot 6x9 (1/2 of 4x5) and the 13x19 in prints

do justice to the photographs. My point only being that the 1200 is quite a capable

printer, as long as it still works. And I scan my 6x9 on a nikon film scanner instead of

a flatbed.

[elaine_w.]

It really is terrible that so much of your digital darkroom equipment is now "outdated". I have shot large format and still own an ancient Beseler 4x5 enlarger made in the late 1950's and it is still going strong. I guess as long as they keep making B&W paper, I will be okay. I love the speed and immediacy of digital capture, but it is scary to change media when one is so used to another. Good luck on your venture.

[ken_hughes4]

when you need a serious update, I would go for digital. that was one of my reasons.....

[andre_noble4]

Need to update the computer to more RAM, and faster cpu. Need Photoshop & study a lot how to use it. Need to update film scanner. Need to get acquainted with place like A&I, West Coast Imaging, and what they can do with your digital files to tradtional materials.

[paul.droluk]

Just returned from the studio, having finished four 22" x 66" prints on the

Epson 7600. 6x17 originals, drum scanned and printed on Pictorico PGHF. I

could never have made such large, delicious prints in my wet darkroom,

where for me a 24x30 was the end of the line. That being said...

The key to your question lies is in your stated requirement , "I'd like to be able

to print up to at least 16x20"... which at least to me means minimum. Your now

looking at the Epson 7600 or comperable. Figure $5K, and that's before you

upgrade your system... say another $3K minimum. Oh, I forgot the scanner(s)

$500 ish for the 4870, let's say another $1K for a dedicated 35 scanner. Your

almost at 10K and I'm sure I've missed a lot. Money no object, and I'ld go full

bore digital for about 20-25K. If that's wasn't reasonable, I'll bet I could set up

a darkroom off of eBay for less than $2500 complete. I wouldn't do it now

myself, (been there, done that) but it's a superbly gratifying learning

experience for the photograher, and the price & quality factor is certainly right.

[richard baznik]

Here's another vote for the Photo 1200's continued usefulness. Mine's been going great for several years now and I see no need to change. I will say it's becoming a bit harder to chase down ink cartridges, however.

 

My scanner is an Epson 3200, which works fine for MF and LF -- and even for 35mm if all I'm doing is posting images on the web. I don't have (and don't want) a 35mm film scanner at this stage.

 

Meanwhile, I retain and use my traditional darkroom for all formats. This may seem to some to be a foolish approach -- remaining committed to both approaches -- but for me it represents a realistic strategy at a time of technological transition. Assuming you have the space and can afford it, why give up either option at this point?

[robert_davis2]

"What would I need to start making prints traditionally and could it be done more cost effectively than the digital route? What about printing color traditionally?"

 

Without too much luck you could put together a wet B&W and Colour darkroom for not much more then $500. You'll be limited by the size of your trays for B&W or drums for colour. But 16x20 drums for colour aren't that expensive used.

 

Enlarger and lenses.

trays,drums etc

pickup a good analzyer on the cheap later if you want.

 

Will the CPP handle the 2850 drum?

[sam_portera]

Traditional. Nothing digital matches a fine fiber print. Any who say other wise are simply lieing or have never seen a fine fiber print. I won't even get into platinum.

[bruce watson]

<i>What would I need to start making prints traditionally and could it be done more cost effectively than the digital route? What about printing color traditionally? I've printed plenty of B&W in a darkroom years ago, but never color. There isn't a whole lot of information on traditional color printing here on Photo.net. Space is not a concern and I do have a Jobo CPP-2.</i>

<p>

What you need in addition to the Jobo is a darkroom with decent ventilation, a decent used enlarger, alignment tools for the enlarger, the appropriate print drums for the Jobo, and a way to dry the print (screens for fiber, hair dryer for RC). A print washer would be nice, but you can wash the prints directly in the Jobo if you wish.

<p>

From where you are, the cost effective route seems to be a traditional darkroom. Why? The darkroom equipment can all be had used, and if you are willing to look for it, very cheaply. You'll be limited to 20x24 prints however.

<p>

My advice is that you can easily do B&W prints with the Jobo. Color prints might not be worth the trouble when you can so easily get a lightjet print on Fuji Archive paper. But, you can also do the color work on the Jobo, which is really what it's designed for anyway.

<p>

If you want to print digitally, you'll need a decent scanner, computer, image editor, and printer. The inks and papers will cost you more than darkroom paper/chemicals as well.

<p>

The choice isn't as simple as your question makes it, IMHO. There are things that you can do with a silver gelatin print that you can't do with an inkjet print. And there are things you can do with an inkjet print that aren't possible with a darkroom print. These two, IOW, are different media, and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

<p>

You have to decide what's important to you in the final print, then look to see what you have to do to obtain it. If that takes you down the darkroom path, so be it. If it takes you down the inkjet path, so be it.

<p>

You can ask questions here as much as you like, but eventually, *you* have to make the decision.

[robert_davis2]

The Jobo and drums will do a better job with colour then B&W IMHO. If you're tight on space or for the odd large print that you don't want to spend big $$$ on big trays then using drums for B&W is fine. Personally I'd rather have a set of trays laid out for B&W. OTOH it's possible to have the processor out of the darkroom. Just load the drums in the darkroom. That makes some very small spaces very usefull.

[rob_landry]

Thanks for all the responses. Well, I'm not really surprised that going the digital route would be more expensive. I really do like the control that is available, but to cover all my bases, yeah, the cost seems rather high. I figure I would need a dedicated printer for B&W and another for color, so at least two Epson 4000s or 7600s. As for scanners, I've never really been too happy with my Minolta. I have tested a Minolta 5400 and a Nikon 5000 and while they give much sharper scans, I found that both really accentuate the grain horribly. I've tried the noise-reduction programs, but these soften the scans as a result. So, it's either sharp and grainy or smooth and blurry. I've had drum scans made which are superior in every respect, but the local lab has closed down and I would have to resort to mail order to have scans done, which is not an option. Actually it's the testing of various consumer film scanners that has led me to consider the traditional approach. It just seems to me that film was designed to be projected and that something is lost in the scanning process (except good drum scans of course).

 

So for a traditional darkroom, what options are still around for color prints from trannies? With the bad news about Ilford, Ilfochrome may not be an option for long. What about Kodak or Fuji reversal materials?

 

The only real concerns I have with the traditional approach would be the availability of color materials and the shelf life of the chemicals (actually, if there are any other concerns I should be aware of with color DR work, please fire away). I imagine a good used dichro enlarger can be found pretty cheap locally so that's not really a concern. I'm familiar with darkroom work in general as I do my own E6 and B&W processing and I have done a fair bit of B&W printing years ago when I had access to a local darkroom. I just recently got back into B&W after years of color, but haven't made prints yet.

[ken_hughes4]

whatever you say Sam....

[jeffrey moore]

Rob, I use two Epson 7600 printers, one with UltraChrome inks for my color work, and the second loaded with PiezoTone inks and the StudioPrint RIP for printing my b/w work. However, you don't necessariy have to do have two printers. If you are not familiar with the ImagePrint RIP, check it out. You can print very good, in fact excellent, b/w prints using UltraChrome inks with a 7600 and ImagePrint. I would be glad to send you a sample if you like. Contact me off list if you are interested.

[brian_ellis3]

There are so many different factors involved with something like this that it's not easy to suggest what you "should" do especially for someone like you who uses different film formats, different types of film, and who does both color and black and white. I'll mention only two points, one minor the other more significant. The relatively minor one is your statement that you would need two printers to print color and black and white. That isn't necessarily true, there are several ways of using one printer for both.

 

The more important point was made by Ray McSavaney when someone in your position asked the same question at a workshop of his that I attended a couple years ago. His statement was that a person who doesn't already have either type of equipment and who doesn't have a clear personal preference for one or the other should go the digital route because that's where the future (and now the present) of photography lies. It's where all the R&D money and effort are being spent, it's where all the improvments will be made, it's becoming the vocabulary that photographers use when they write or talk to each other, etc. etc.

 

Since Ray still uses a traditional darkroom this suggestion was surprising to me but I thought it made a lot of sense. If you said you just loved working with chemicals in a darkroom or really liked the look of tradtional prints on glossy fiber base paper or anything like that I'd say by all means get traditional darkroom equipment. But you indicate no strong preference for working in either mode so I'd say the same thing Ray did, bite the bullet, learn Photoshop, get some new equipment if you need it (but just because your existing equipment is older doesn't mean it automatically needs to be replaced), and go from there.

[james___]

I haven't read all of the responses here but I will give you my opinion on the matter. I would definately go digital. And this from someone who can't figure out photoshop and get a decent print. In fact I'll die in the darkroombefore I will make the switch myself. But.................. if I were to do it again? I'd go PC all the way. I shoot large format. 4x5 to 8x10. I forget the make but there is a very good scanner for up to 4x5 for under $400USD. I don't shoot color because printing color is such a hassle. It really is. It's not that hard in the digital darkroom though, so why bother doing it wet? I've seen stunning work with minimal equipment. I have the 1200 and it makes great prints. Not mine of course because I'm not good at calibrating the whole system. But I know others working with less who make beautiful prints. I feel if you are going to work with color, then go digital. There is no way outside dye sub and masking that can get you what you can make digitally so much more easily. As for black and white which is what I do, an old fashioned darkroom is wonderful. But the same is true of black and white. Go digital young man. Go digital.

[james___]

I'll argue with Sam here. I used to say that. I was the poster child for the darkroom hacks. Anyone can look Mr Lumberjack up in the archives and see the old battles. But what I have seen in the last year or two is wonderful. The papers. The inks. The prints. Unbelievable. Especially with color. But the black and white is now stunning. Last Wednesday in my printing club, I saw prints that I defy anyone to tell the difference between fiberbased silver paper, and inkjet. I was amazed. I go to galleries (Monterrey, Carmel, San Francisco, San Diego) all the time. And I am amzed at what is being printed digitally. Sam, there is no differnce anymore. And I've been printing a very long time now. I teach it. Go digital young men. Go digital.

[james___]

One other opinion regarding the traditional vs digital darkroom. The monetary outlay initially seems high with the digital darkroom but when you start buying color paper, cemicals, black and white materials, the time it takes to make a decent color print chemically, ect, ect.............the cost of digital comes way down. The big difference is the workflow. You make a mistake with color balance(happens all the time) in the chemical environment and it is back to the darkroom you go. Using a computer, you make one print. You make any adjustments on the computer before you print. And you can work on an image, stop, save it, come back to it later, go to another image and work on it then print. The PC based printing is so efficient. And so much more flexible. Geeze, just look at the images here now compared to what was posted here even two years ago. Go digital young men. Go digital.

[robert_davis2]

I can usually make a good color print in one attempt. It may not be a "fine art" print but it's better then you'll get at most labs unless you pay for fine art work. Color paper seems cheap to me. Certainly cheaper then fibre B&W. I bet it costs me around 50cents Canadian per 8x10 on Kodak Supra including the cost of chemicals. If you're running a lot of prints then it makes sense to buy bigger lots of paper and chemicals. Then the price per sheet goes down even more. Even if it took four attempts that's $2 Canadian or about $1.50 US. Last I looked the better digital papers weren't free and the ink isn't either. How cheap is GOOD inkjet paper?

[wayne_crider4]

Here's a third option you should investigate before commiting your money. In

the 35mm arena I have decided to just leave the color 35mm processing and

printing to one of my local labs which does a great job. Their prices are very

competitive and they are commited to making me happy, which means redos

are usually no charge. I usually get their CD instead ($9.95 no prints and my

pictures are archived both ways.) of approx 16 mb files which allows me to

later get printed just the ones I want at prices so fair it's ridiculous. 16x20

optical prints (off the negs) are $19.75 and really, how many 16x20's can you

have on a wall so thats not going to break the bank there. Btw, digital prints

off the files or any manipulate files, although not available in 16x20, do come

in 11x14 and that cost me $10.75. Anyway you look a it, it's rather cheap

compared to buying the latest and greatest equipment that will set you back

alot more and have bugs and work arounds at that. At least this way you don't

have to play the upgrade game all the time. For B&W I like to develop my own

and have the good frames scanned and printed as above.

 

Now in 4x5, in which I set up a darkroom and then tore it down in a year and

sold it off, I am seriously considering buying an 8x10 and contact printing,

although, a friend of mine gets some really nice 16x20's printed for something

around $20; Can't beat that with a stick, so look around and see whats

available. So in the end my rec is, get more ram, a more updated Photoshop,

stay away from the printer, ink and paper b.s. (unless you want to print some

just for fun or as an aide for a lab), develop your own b&w film, get scans at

the local lab and have them print your work or one of the top labs that alot of

the pro's go to like West Coast Imaging. In the end you'll probably save a load

of money if for personal use and always have the best equipment doing the

job for you. As you go along maybe read the equipment reviews, watch the

ads and pickup equipment as you go.

[stevewillard]

I started out using a JOBO CPP-2 to do C-41 color negs and RA-4 color prints, and I loved

it. I shoot 4x5, 5x7, and 4x10 film. I use the 3000 drum system to process all my film. I

now use a JOBO ATL 2 Plus machine to do all my processing. I bought it used for less than

what you would pay for a new CPP-2. It is completely automatic and a dream to use. I do

control contrast by altering development times just like you do in B&W with N+1, N, N-1,

N-2, and N-3.

 

I can do extremely high quality color work with this setup very fast and very inexpensively.

To make a 16x20 print using the most expensive archival paper available ($200 for 50

sheets) cost me about $4.65 which includes chemistry. I can process any archival color

print in less than 4 minutes versus hours for a B&W print.

 

I have recently bought a used 8x10 enlarger for $1000. It came in pieces and we restored

it to new like condition for additional $1200. This included rebuilding the 2000w color

head with a 8 new matched bulbs and 8 new sets of dichroic filters. It stands 10' tall and

weighs around 1000 pounds. That is cheaper then what it cost me to buy my 4x5

enlarger.

 

This is great time to buy classic processing equipment on ebay. I just purchased a

Fujimoto CP-51 with wash unit for $2000. It was in mint condition and can process up to

20x24 prints without jamming in the rollers. We are currently building a jig that

allows use to very accurately align the paper with with the rollers. Are hope is to run

20x50 panaramic prints throught the CP-51 from the 4x10 negs. Expected cost per print

we hope is just over $10.

 

I also just picked up a gigantic 30x40 drum processor for $350. The drum is the size of a

barrel and rotates on a motorized base and has a cleaver way for dumping and feeding

chemistry. However, it has no means for controling temperature. We just finished

restoring it. Our hope is to use Tetnal room temeperature RA-4 chemistry to process

30x40 prints with it. I have read a number of good reviews about this chemistry, but is not

cheap. Expected cost per print is around $27 and most of that is the chemistry.

 

As you can tell our goal is to produce big high quaility prints inexpensively. We have the

capability of also doing digital images as well, but doing big high quality stuff cheap is not

plausible with digital.

 

Also there are new emerging trends for those of you who hope to do fine art photography.

People who buy fine art photgraphy are not willing to buy computer generated images.

They want to know that the human endeavor does not take place in front of a computer

with smart software, but rather takes place in the real world with smart people who are

gifted and talented. Classic photography provides the buyer with those assurances.

[mikeseb]

Rob:

 

I am in a similar situation as you, and I am making the transition to digital. I work from the

assumption that photography is your hobby or avocation rather than your occupation, as I

am not qualified to speak to the latter situation.

 

Photography has been my hobby for 30+ years; my participation in it has waxed and

waned depending on other things going on in my life (school, training, marriage, kids,

work, the usual) but has never gone away. I have extensive B&W darkroom experience, but

this year I have decided to go digital gradually, as I replace / upgrade equipment. This is

because, in my opinion, the quality attainable by digital processes equals or exceeds that

of silver-based processes for the kind of shooting I do.

 

I work in several formats up to 4 by 5 inch; I am entirely digital now in place of 35 mm,

using my film Nikon equipment as backup (prices for this stuff in the used market are so

low now that it's not worth the trouble to sell it!). If only I could find a buyer for my Beseler

45MXT enlarger system that is gathering dust in the basement. (New this outfit would

cost me ca $3500, but I'd do well to get $1500 on eBay for the entire kit.)

 

I still shoot medium and large format on film, and process the negatives in a Jobo ATL

-1500 (also from eBay). I then scan the negatives on either a Nikon film scanner--bought

on eBay--or on a flatbed. (For instance, the Epson 4870 is a nice high resolution flatbed

scanner that will also do film up to 4 by 5, for around $400 US.) Regardless of format, my

goal is to end up with a high-quality digital image that I can then bring into physical form.

(My flatbed is nothing special--an old HP 1200 dpi flatbed with transparency attachment,

that provides excellent resolution for up to 16 by 20 inch prints)

 

I don't think there is any question that you could set up a wet darkroom more cheaply than

a digital darkroom, given that you are going to need to upgrade your computer system.

But will the digital route be money better spent in the long run? I think so. For me it was

the question of where in the process I wanted to spend the time. Back when my time was

limitless and only my own, I didn't mind spending hours in the darkroom, fancying myself

some Ansel Adams knockoff, laboring to make a single print. Working digitally, I can

spend the "creative" time correcting color and contrast, etc, where needed in PhotoShop

and then have a perfect print emerge from the printer. I spend more time on the creative

end, less time drowning in the mechanics of the old wet processes.

 

Specific recommendations:

 

1. If you are upgrading your computer system, consider a Macintosh system. (Please let's

not start a PC vs Mac jihad here--this is just one guy's opinion!! :) Coming from an

extensive PC background, I switched to Mac two years ago after struggling with digital

video on the PC, which at the time was a fruitless and frustrating cluster--f***. In my

opinion, just about everthing image-wise is easier on the Mac. It is made to do graphic

arts work.

 

2. Printers: I just purchased the new Epson 4000, cost ca. $1800. I am thrilled with the

results I am getting, even though I am still learning to use it. I agree with the other person

who recommended ImagePrint RIP software, as it enables me to print top quality b&w or

color from the same printer. The prints have to be seen to be believed. It prints up to 17

by 22" sheets, or 17 by the-length-of-your-roll if using roll paper. THe selection of

papers available is terrific, and inkjet prints using Epson's pigment-based inks should last

as long as silver- or dye-based traditional photographic prints.

 

Forgive the rambling discourse. Bottom line, I vote for digital if you can afford it, even if

the upfront cost is higher. You can still shoot on film and either scan it yourself or have it

scanned, but print digitally. This is where the future is headed for most of us.

 

Good luck with your decision.

[john_kasaian1]

Rob,

 

Traditional of course(if you go digital, you won't need a dark room!)

 

Cheers!

[michael_chmilar]

Things to consider for digital:

 

You can save on initial cash outlay by using a service bureau to do your scanning and printing. This is especially true if you are doing "low volume".

 

The current crop of low-priced flatbed scanners do not compete with the drum scanners that a service bureau will use. The flatbeds are okay for casual use, and "proofing", but, when you have a definite "keeper", it is worth spending the money for a high-quality scan.

 

Similarly, for printers, the Epson 4000 is the minimum you should consider (especially as you say you want to print at least 16x20). For the cost of purchasing the printer, you can make a lot of Lightjet or Epson prints at a service bureau.

 

The technology of scanners and printers is rapidly evolving, both increasing capability and lowering price. Let the service bureaus worry about maintaining and upgrading these devices.

 

As to your computer: it may be slow, but it is still capable of doing the job. The minimum upgrade you should consider is to add more RAM. RAM is cheap, and it is the most effective upgrade for Photoshop users. You also need a monitor calibration device, such as the Eye-One or Colorvision Spyder (this is not optional!).

 

You should also consider taking a class that a local service bureau offers on digital imaging (ie. Photoshop basics, how to set up your computer and workflow, etc.). It will get you to the level where you are producing high-quality results much faster than figuring it out by yourself.

 

In the end, you can start exploring digital with very little expenditure: a class at a service bureau, some RAM, calibration device, a few scans and prints from the service bureau. If you do not already own Photoshop, then purchasing the software is the biggest expense.

[bobbyc]

isn't Digital darkroom an oxymoron ?