B&W Printing - When could digital match the quality ?

[paul_cop]

The depth of a B&W print is amazing and something I can not replicate in

digital.

 

My question is how much must digital progress before it can deliver the quality

of a B&W print from a traditional darkroom ?

 

At the moment most people process colour at 24 bits (8 bits per channel). When

you change your colour file into B&W you affectively only use one channel (in

other words a total of 8 bits)

 

So in other words how many BITS in computer speak would you need to replicate

the quality of B&W ?

[matt_needham]

It has more to do with the people using the technology, than the technology itself. You say "the quality of a B&W print from a traditional darkroom" as if merely being a gelatin silver print makes it perfect. Not so. Wonderful gelatin silver prints require practice, skill, and experience to create. Most that I see look like they were printed by first year darkroom students, and need to be reprinted, IMO. Making beautiful BW prints using digital methods also requires practice, skill, and experience. Yes, there are plenty of poorly done digital BW prints out there, just like all the poorly done gelatin silver prints. But there are also enough beautifully done digital BW prints for me to assume the technology is good enough, and it's the person that is the weak link.

[steve_dawson1]

There is an implicit assumption in this question that the answer lies in improvements in digital technology and not in improvements in the skills of digital photography practitioners. No one questions the years of experience needed to master darkroom techniques; why would it be any different for digital prints?

[wigwam jones]

The key "something I can not replicate" is linked with "how much must digital progress before it can deliver" says it all. If *I* cannot do it, it cannot be done.

 

I fell off my bicycle last night. How much must bicycle manufacturing progress before it can deliver a bicycle that I cannot fall off of?

 

Personally, I am quite pleased with my digital prints - B&W as well as color. But I like both (digital and film), and don't see one as superior to the other.

[tripanfal]

I hate threads like these, it could very well get out of control...

 

People have strong feelings either way. From what I've read and researched, beautiful B&W prints can be printed digital, but it costs $$. I believe your average printer cannot compete with a true wet print, but the high end printers (not the 299.00 special at Best Buy)are very close if not there already. *ducking*

 

It is a personal choice. I shot a lot of digital, and still do, but was disappointed by the prints I made at home (with my 299.00 Canon printer) and decided to start playing with film and silver. My darkroom prints are certainly not masterpieces, yet :), but they are better than what could print at home digitally. The price of darkroom equipment and cameras makes it that much more attractive. I put together an entire darkroom for the cost of a set of ink cartridges (from a high end printer)

 

As for 'bits' and having enough information in a digital file I think we are there already, especially for anything up to 11x14 if not larger. I'm not a Canon camera guy but the 13mp full frame sensor is very, very good, again, from what I read. It just costs a lot of $$ to get set up to print digitally with any kind of quality.

 

One other thing I miss is editing photos in Photoshop. It is such a powerful, fast, and accurate tool I long for it when I do darkroom prints sometimes. The dust alone is getting to me lately.

 

I equate this question to the film vs digital 'debate'. I would say each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

[skygzr]

I agree with Christopher....questions like these, while not always flame bait, are hard to answer in any meaningful way. Some people who couldn't load film on a reel can make stunning digital prints.

 

I have no doubt there's some combination of sensor, printer, ink, and (most importantly) photographer that can make a digital print that is better than anything I'll ever make. Same with film, paper, and chemistry.

[bruce_watson1]

<i>My question is how much must digital progress before it can deliver the quality of a B&W print from a traditional darkroom ?</i>

<p>

Short answer -- none. It's there already.

<p>

Long answer -- that's a non-sequitur. Darkroom prints and inkjet prints are different media. Inkjet prints aren't wanna be darkroom prints. No amount of wishing will make that be true.

<p>

As it stands, inkjet prints are sharper than darkroom prints, especially corner-to-corner. They exhibit beautiful shadown detail and highlight detail on the same print, which I found really difficult to do in the darkroom. And it's much easier to make a big print with an inkjet printer than it is to make a big print in the darkroom.

<p>

OTOH, darkroom prints have better scuff and scratch resistence. They give a feeling of depth from the gelatin top coat. They currently have better Dmax.

<p>

Like I said, they are two different media. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

[ivan_dzo]

Well said Bruce. The quality is already there or surpassed. But good prints from both techniques look different. Sometimes I prefer one, sometimes the other. They don't look the same but they show equal qualtiy - at best!

[ellis_vener_photography]

As Bruce points out: with a high quality pigment pritner (the newer Epsons and Canons), the

visual qualities of inkjet black & white printing already matchand surpass what is possible

with silver halide based printing. Learning how to print really well whether in a wet darkroom

or with Photoshop and an inkjet printer requires learning the necessary skills. Nothing is

automatic, effort and brains must be applied and mistakes made and learned from.

[conrad_hoffman]

I've shot every format from half-frame to 8x10. I know what a good b&w print is, and have even made a few when the phase of the moon was right. I do have one 4x5 shot that I've never been able to equal in terms of tonal quality, probably due to a fortunate combination of conditions and a film they don't make anymore. Other than that, the quality of b&w prints from my D200 (or even my Panasonic FZ-20 up to a certain size) is mostly equal to what I could do on film. And that with a Canon i9900 printer, a printer not known for it's b&w capabilities. The trick, IMO, is image processing and paper choice. Now, if you're hung up on exactly duplicating the look and feel of air dried F surface paper, it isn't out there. OTOH, if you've been at this a while, you might remember all the different surfaces that photo paper was been offered in over the years. You now have a similar choice with inkjet paper. Not to mention all the subtle tonings you can get just by dialing them in. The one place where I see inkjets as not being equal or better is the making of Holmes style stereo cards. The images are viewed under magnification, and a good contact print still retains more fine detail. That's a printer issue, not a source issue. For un-magnified viewing I can't tell the difference.

[jeff_drew4]

. . . and then there is that "eye of the beholder" thing going on!

My masterpiece usually gets a yawn from my best friend & wife. Stuff I think is snapshot quality gets raves. So there is a science and there is an art, and which sets of tools one chooses to use are potentially less important than the audience's reception of your work. BTW: I agree with Christopher, Kevin, Ellis, and many of the excellent comments above.

[nickc1]

I'm basically with Ivan and Bruce, but remember that most of the 'iconic' images so far have been in gelatin silver, so the impression that is expected by a viewer may tend away from the digital version of the image. Better or worse is not the issue, either can be either - the fact is that one is long time technology, while the other is the new guy on the block, perhaps without the 'look' you expect.

[User_502260]

For my own reasons I hope the look of traditional b&w prints is never exactly duplicated. The edge effects and grain patterns of traditional b&w film/prints done with projection printing are unique. A few years ago a friend joked that I wanted to keep using film so I could get grain. When I use Pan F+ or ACROS in my Bronica GS-1 and make an 8X10 or 11X14 there isn't any visible grain. A digital print of the same subject and of the same size, even with a high resolution sensor, will not have finer grain than a print made with these films and a 6X7 negative. Both can be nice but they will never have the same exact look. There is no reason that they must be exactly the same.

[mikem77]

I've seen amazing B&W inkjet prints. They are _different_ from silver halide on Fiber B&W, but I would say the quality is comparable.

 

That said, many who make digital prints do *not* use digital capture. I've spoken with numerous fine-art photographers, who print digitally, but swear by B&W film for capture (in medium and large formats). Something about the color Bayer sensors in digital cameras.

 

I find Nick Brandt's work amazing:

 

www.nickbrandt.com

 

He had a portfolio in LensWork last year, which indicated he shoots TMX 100 on Pentax 6x7 equipment, but then scans and prints digitally.

[akov]

This is an absolutely wrong question...

 

In terms of bits as you ask, we are at that level. Nowadays, you have a 24 bit RGB colour picture, however with 256 true gray shades. In fact your eyes are not able to make distinction between more that some hundreds shades of grey. If you go for scanning B&W negatives in true colour, you can't make it better. According to my experiences, a true colour scanned picture from B&W negative can result in 1500-2000 shades of grey (in fact these are just close to grey as with a true gray shade R=G=B, but you won't see any difference).

 

In terms of film, you will never get the same with a CCD sensor as different films has different sensitivity to each component of light (red, green and blue), that's why you can see big differences between an Ilford and a Kodak B&W negative. You will never reproduce this...

[mitchell_kirschner]

As others have said, it's more a question of skill than anything else. Good results are possible with either film or digital capture. In my opinion, capturing on B&W, then scanning, gives a much closer result to a darkroom print, due to tonality, grain, etc.

 

An inexpensive "starter" system capable of very high quality results is an Epson C88 with a dedicated quadtone inkset from MIS Associates. The only limitations are print size (it only takes letter-sized paper) and skill/experience, which comes with practice and mastery of some basic concepts.

 

Some resources for further reading:

 

"The" web hangoug for enthusiasts of digital B&W printing. Several well-known authorities such as Paul Roark and Clayton Jones frequent this group, and offer lots of helpful advice.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalblackandwhitetheprint

 

Paul Roark's site. Another well-known leader in the field, who has developed some high-quality and sophisticated inksets.

http://www.paulroark.com

 

Clayton Jones' site (a guru on the technique of "black only" printing)

http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

 

Source for affordable high-quality B&W pigmented inks (I'm a satisfied customer)

http://www.inksupply.com

[rich_ullsmith1]

Anyone who has had the pleasure of holding a chlorobromide print that was developed in amidol, they would not be asking this question. It can't be quantified. I wish there was a way to produce that sensation without getting my hands dirty, but alas, there is not.

[tripanfal]

I hope that more and more people print digitally, then if I ever get good enough I can make darkroom prints and sell them as old school, hand made, fine art :)

 

On the other hand I better be careful what I wish for or I'll be coating my own paper... :(

[big toys are better]

I think that one important point I'm hearing but isn't being well articulated is that great digital printing, especially for the larger prints, still finds a basis in good film, proper processing and high quality scanning of the original image, then to be printed in a high quality manner as well.

 

I love digital cameras and they can do most of what a 35mm film can do, but they still can't compare to larger film, especially for B&W.

 

And I can generally see the differences between the traditional gloss/semi-gloss silver gelatin print and a digital print, but matte prints and some of the older techniques are quite similar to high quality digital inkjet prints. With few exceptions, I think the inkjets are going to win out, and I sure hope that Cibachrome and high quality silver gelatin papers will survive.

[paulr]

How many have done both?

 

I've pulled out my old Bessler 23C and am going back to wet printing for some negatives. I

will not be giving up the inkjet. I simply have come to the conclusion that unless you have

an Imacon or a drum scanner in your workflow the results are just "ok".

 

I was going through some prints made years ago and "subjectively" decided that there is

more depth and tonal range to the prints then on a inkjet. Almost 3D if you may.

 

I still have not been able to perfect the blacker blacks and the whiter whites in digital

using the R2400 and a variety of papers. I agree to some extent that its the operator and

not the equipment. (plus I get really sick of being in front of a computer)

 

I understand the HP Z3100 12 ink printer is pretty amazing. Phew, in my hands though....

[tripanfal]

How many have done both?

 

I have, and to be truthful, I suck at both. But I can get "less sucky" prints in the darkroom. I can get better images for computer viewing with digital cameras and photoshop though, if that makes sense.

 

I think one way to look at it is if you want outstanding B&W prints, you can achieve it either way. But the digital route will cost more. For me cost is a factor, and film is still cheaper. I bought 2 Rapid Omegas for under 200.00, the lenses are absoutely superbly sharp. I have a dozen or so other cameras from folders, to TLR's, to 35mm (all with decent glass) I make prints in my darkroom which I put together for less than $500.00. Yeah, I have to pay for film, paper, chemicals, but I'm not buying INK. I saw a printer shootout of some big league printers, these things were all over a grand and the replacement inks were big $$.

 

The printer above, the Z3100 - 4 grand. That's a lot of paper and chemicals. Although, I'm sure if I had that printer on my desk and could afford the ink, I would shoot a lot more digital.

 

Bottom line for me is the consumer grade, everyday printer does not give me the prints *I'm* happy with.

 

...and as for blacker blacks I agree. I think the depth of absolute black on fiber is so deep and rich, ink will have a hard time matching it.

 

Color prints are a different story for another thread :)

[paulr]

Very good Christopher. I know how you feel.

Four grand for a printer is beyond my reach. The commerciality of digital has made many

of us think that spending more money will produce some outstanding results. Hah!

 

I like Stefan Rohner's photos. He has stayed with darkroom printing for many of the same

reasons. Tonal range or depth is one of them. His printing is excellent as he has used the

same processes for a long while. As I recall he used a lot of Agfa MCC 111 a fiber based

paper.

 

Pretty good example to follow instead of skipping around from one thing to another

blowing money with mediocre results.

[kparratt]

My studio, printmaking, and espesially photography are pixel-free zones. From the era of photogravure plates to the best of fibre-based fineart papers, there are qualities that digital doesn't come near.

 

"As it stands, inkjet prints are sharper than darkroom prints, especially corner-to-corner." Bruce, with respect, if you can't get sharpness corner to corner with an enlarger, its either the lens or use of the lens. Maybe the neg carrier is the problem, maybe it's the camera, but there's an entire history of magnificent darkroom work that speaks for itself.

 

"Quality" ? Big word, almost like "God"

 

The clinical appearance of so much super-slick digital imaging simply loses it for me. It's cold.

 

Cheers, Kevin.

[paul_cop]

Thanks for your responses guys. I am giving a talk on B&W prints to people who are digital photographers who know nothing about traditional B&W process. So I need to know some of the maths involved to ensbla them to understand how a B&W print can have so much detail in the shadow and highlight areas. If anyone knows the maths involved here of the difference between the DMAX of B&W compared to digital I would appreciate it greatly. Many Thanks Paul

[conrad_hoffman]

There isn't much math that applies to Dmax- it's just how black the various materials can go. The reality is that pictorial prints almost never come close to the Dmax the materials are capable of, and it's not a very important parameter. A densitometer is capable of "seeing" differences in blacks that the eye sometimes can't discern at all. As for what materials are capable of the best Dmax, I can't tell you, for it would just start a fight. Hint- the words matte and/or fiber do not appear in the answer. I haven't measured any output from a new pigment printer, so my info is a bit dated.