No-Print Darkroom?

[charles_miller5]

I'm sure that more than a few of you folks process your own film and prints, just as I used

to do many moons ago. Today I'm getting back into B/W shooting and vintage cameras,

but I'm NOT sure I want to build-up another full scale darkroom, 90% of which would be

devoted to print processing.

 

Instead, I'd like to process film only, then go straight to a digital film scanner with my

negatives. I mean, I can develop a can of film in a 2-square-foot daylight glove box with

my eyes closed, no problem. And with negative scanning technology so affordable, why

not just go straight to the screen?

 

My question is, do you good people process your own film and skip the print process as

I'm describing? Any hints or tips to bring me up to speed as I creep back into the hobby?

Thanks for your kind replies! :)

 

Charles miller

Kings Mountain, NC

[todd frederick]

I am exactly where you are on this.

 

I did the whole wet darkroom thing since the late 1950's and recently got into digital, and closed down my darkroom.

 

I'm now doing some serious photography with vintage cameras and b/w film.

 

If I use something like Tri-X, I will process it and then scan my choices.

 

If I use chromogenic film like XP-2 or Kodak 400CN, I will have a mini-lab process the negs and make a CD in TIFF.

 

I can also take in convenional film (Tri-X and such) and the mini-lab (drugstore) will scan it to a CD in TIFF.

 

All I need to do is to be sure the images are converted to grayscale and then tweak them a bit in Levels.

 

This works for me quite nicely and I can get my daily dose of sun while making images in my "Lightroom!" I love it! (^O^)

[grinder]

I think it is great Todd enjoys it that way. I hate it. I make wet prints from my film and recently bought a DSLR for color, mostly because I despise scanning. I'm sure if I had 1000 dollar scanner it would be better but that defeats the purpose of it IMO. So I now shoot B&W on film in my Autocord and rebel because I enjoy darkroom work and love the results and shoot color on the DSLR. It all depends on what you enjoy. I enjoy the chemistry and trays. I can't foresee me giving up my enlargers and darkroom until I can no longer buy the paper and chemicals I need.

 

Good luck and no matter what enjoy yourself.

 

,Grinder

[grinder]

I will add I bought a decent scanner at epson.com for 69.00 with free shiping it is the perfection 3170 does 12 35mm at once or 4 6x6.(This was a while back but they still had them last month in the refurb section.) Again you get what you pay for but it isnt junk it does a nice job. A dedicated scanner is the way to go if you are going to be doing alot of volume.

[h._p.]

I'm doing pretty much what Charles describes at the moment but I'd definitely like to get back to doing some wet prints. I've got some very nice equipment together at bargain prices but it's a case of extracting the digit and putting a working darkroom together. I think that whichever route you go the main thing is to enjoy the process and be pleased with the results.

[vidom]

Charles, I work this way for test shots. As a collector/user of old cameras I am quite often interested in testing newly acquired lenses or cameras (some of my pics posted here were made this way); there is not much sense in printing yet another pic of the old monastry's brick wall, OTOH it gives a much better impression of the results if you can view them on the screen. I found the quality of my amateurish scans made with a cheap film scanner unsatisfactory for prints, so if I want a high quality print I still use my wet darkroom. AFAIK it takes a very high quality scanner, much effort and great skills to get high quality pics from scanning regular b/w film. It may be easier with chromogenic b/w film. But if you want to skip wet processing there simply is no alterative to a hybrid workflow.

[randall ellis]

That's how I got started before I had room for an enlarger. Now I just use one of the bathrooms to print and I've never looked back. The hand process is so much more rewarding than using a computer, for me that is. My setup time is about 5-10 minutes, same for tear down, and the bathroom is a bathroom when it's not full of dark. The bottom line is; Do what you want to do for your own reasons and don't worry about what other people are doing or what they think of what you are doing.

 

- Randy

[mtk]

Hi Chuck! I still do wet darkroom for BW. I have a vintage Vivitar enlarger with a color head and use the built in filters for Variable contrast papers. I tend to like to do med format stuff more now than 35, but still do from time to time with my vintage stuff. Very relaxing and enjoyable, however I too have toyed with doing the dry/digital/scan method.

My color 35mm color photography with a "modern" Maxxum 70 and probably soon to be digital.

It is a great time for photography many (WAY TOO MANY) choices between awsome films, quality digital, fantastic vintage glass coupled with new high tech films, pricing dirt cheap on old pro med format stuff, 99 dollar scanners, what do you pick up first?

What ever method works for you and you enjoy it is the right one!

Have Fun! Mark

[joename]

That is exactly what I do. Process my b/w film and scan it on a

Nikon LS-9000. Getting the scans to look exactly like a wet print is

a challenge, but the results are pretty good. You'll also find out

that certain film/dev combos that work great for wet prints don't

work that well for scanning. I've tried several developers, but so

far F76+ is one of my favorites. Diafine is pretty good too. Since

you can add contrast in photoshop, low contrast scenes are not that

bad. I'm testing XTOL next, hopefully tonight.

[jeff bishop]

I'm not going to be any help on this at all.

 

I do the same as what you are suggesting. Process the film, and then scan it.

 

I also have a darkroom which I am in the process of upgrading (to handle 4x5 as well). So I guess I'm doing it both ways...

[conrad_hoffman]

I refuse to give up anything! Why should I? I shoot digital, I shoot film. I scan, I wet print, I print on the inkjet. 35mm to mf to 4x5. I mix all my own chemistry from scratch, and refill my ink cartridges from a kit. Whatever floats my boat at a given moment in time. The interesting thing is that I can get pretty much equivalent quality regardless of the path I take, at least up to 8x10. It's an excellent time to be in the hobby!

[charles_miller5]

Well, I was a traditional hands-on commercial artist & photographer until 1984. I worked

with everything from retail SLRs up to Argyle process cameras, mixed my own chemistry

and recycled silver, the works. A very stinky business.

 

In 1984 I jumped on the desktop publishing bandwagon (in spite of the limited software at

the time), and pretty much abandoned my traditional roots. In the last 22 years, I've

mastered digital scanning and photo retouching, so much so that I'm now the marketing

manager of a global business software company.

 

Lately I've pursued a few fun side jobs rebuilding damaged photos for friends, family and

some customers---for example, taking 80-year-old family photos creased and ripped to

shreds and reassembling them digitally. In one instance, a friend of mine in Norway sent

an old set of 1940s reject negatives that had never been printed, and he wanted to see the

images "brought to life," to use his words. Pleasant surprise, the photos were from a

picnic in the Norwegian countryside, featuring his departed mother, her sister and her

brother, and he was thrilled to see the photos for the first time ever, albeit 60 years after

the fact.

 

In fact, it was that experience that convinced me to dig out my old cameras and try to get

back into actual prehistoric photography as a hobby. With all the instant gratification of

digital cameras and back-lit scanners, I had almost forgotten that sense of anticipation as

you process your film, kind of like waiting for Christmas to open presents.

 

Charles Miller

Kings Mountain, NC<div></div>

[todd frederick]

I am currently doing print scanning for a good friend. His photos go back to the 1960s. My example here is relevant to negatives or prints with digital scanning.

 

Today I scanned a photo (below) that was very low in contrast, and had a few other problem.

 

I scanned it and made corrections in Photoshop, which, I think would be very difficult to do in a wet darkroom.

 

This photo matches the original. In the next post is the corrected photo.

 

I think we can use both film and digital imaging together, hand-in-hand, and, based on my experience over the past year, the B/W prints I'm getting with digital inkjet printing are beautiful on matte paper and are archival when framed behind glass.

 

Below is the original. Then follows the corrected image.<div></div>

[todd frederick]

Here is a digitally corrected image. It speaks for itself!<div></div>

[roger_smith4]

The second part of the digital process is printing (and it seems this is the part you're not excited about doing digitally). I'd encourage you to check out affordable B&W inkjets to start with. I recently started with the Epson R220 (letter-size) which is obtainable for under $50 and some Innova 315 matte paper using MIS inks. The quality is far better than I got using commercial B&W labs, and I'm enjoying playing with different techniques and types of paper.

 

Check out this page:

http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

[todd frederick]

Roger,

 

Good link. Thanks.

 

I use Epson Heavyweight Matte in an Epson Photo 1280 in a Black Only setting and I get wonderful prints.

[larrydressler]

I do both but the wet room is mostly at my daughters house. I also got a rebuilt scanner from epsom.com the 3170. I prefer it and I should update my software but the Elements 2.0 that came with it works like a champ I even made a mask to do my submini negs and slides. It will handle any thing up to 6x9cm. Just ad more RAM to your computer.

 

Larry<div></div>