Convince a purist to switch to B&W digital printing!

[swilson]

<p>

<p>This does not have to be an matter of one or the other, you can do a bit of both and decide which method to use based on the negative and what you are after. Some negatives are just a pain to print optically, for these scanning can get you are far better print with much less work. If on the other hand you have a good negative and enjoy the process of making an optical print then why not?</p>

</p>

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>1_faster<br>

2_easier</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>not sure what that has to do with a quality print hanging on the wall. sounds like the same reasons that digicam fanboys cite for going digital capture. if you want it over and done with as quick as possible because the actual process of making a print is not pleasurable, then perhaps find another hobby. <br>

i suppose the only reason a hobbyist would go digital is to have the control. you can get consistant results, but there is something to be said for having a hand made traditional print on fibre paper, which is a unique copy. there is something very detached about making and owing a digital print. But if you are working professionally, then that's a different situation.</p>

[larrybc]

<p>I converted to digital printing when I received some sample b/w prints from a member of photo.net quite a few years ago. Until I saw those photos, I had no idea that digital b/w prints could be so good. Not long after that I bought my first inkjet photo printer and aside from maybe ONE darkroom session very early on, I haven't gone back. It's been digital all the way.<br>

I like the consistency and the ease of experimenting to get the most out of my images. Plus it's so easy to make copies for people. Before, I used to dread people asking me to make extra prints for them.<br>

Oh, and I'm very happy that I no longer have to clean chemical containers and whip up fresh batches...and monitor temperatures.<br>

The only downside is that ink prices are quite high. And I was forced to buy a newer photo printer when I switched to 64-bit operating systems, since HP wouldn't provide a suitable update to their printer driver.</p>

<p>larsbc</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>Aaron, if you keep going, you'll end up blowing ground pigments on the sides of caves :).</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>Chris, my experience converting color digital to black and white have been a bit dissappointing. I have never been able to reproduce the results I have had in the past using black and white Ilford negative film and paper.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>It comes down to what your goals are. If you want the maximum fine art quality in a black and white photography, then you should stick with the silver halide process and make REAL black and white prints. A digital print <em>falls way short</em> of a properly exposed and processed black and white negative, printed on a premium paper like Oriental Seagull. Not to mention with black and white film you have the ability to use the Zone System, which gives you more flexibility in image creation than digital could ever provide. I shoot T-MAX 100, develop it in D-76 1:1 with differing development times for N, N+/-1 and N+/-2 and print on Seagull. Converted color to grayscale prints, printed on high end printers still look pretty weak compared to the old fashioned way. Even if the images are in 12 or 16 bit.</p>

<p>Digital has come a long way with color, but it has an equally long way to go when it comes to parity with conventional silver halide based black and white.</p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>Well, you will need the following:<br>

1- At least an average skill level with post processing - preferably with PS CS4<br>

2- You would do well to have your own printer. For outstanding B&W work I would suggest the Epson 3800/3880. Use the advanced b&w mode.<br>

3- Use a decent paper with good dmax (deep blacks). I use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl<br>

For a period of 50 years - yes 50 years - I had my own darkroom. I taught b&w photography for 32 years. I am now retired and LOVE what I can now do.<br>

No more multiple enlargers (ala Uelsmann), no more fine tuning of secret chemical formulas, no more following elaborate notes on dodging and burning every print, no more wasting 20 sheets of 16 x 20 paper to get THE print (or the hours and hours it took).<br>

MOST importantly, my Epson 3800 prints are better than anything I ever did in my darkroom. And I had a half dozen shows with my fine art prints. I am getting old and slow (73) but I can still crank them out.<br>

There, convinced?</p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>I tried to edit the above but ran out of my alloted 10 minutes. So here is the edit version.</p>

<p>Well, you will need the following:<br />1- At least an average skill level with post processing - preferably with PS CS4<br>

2- You would do well to have your own printer. For outstanding B&W work I would suggest the Epson 3800/3880. Use the advanced b&w mode.<br>

<br />3- Use a decent paper with good dmax (deep blacks). I use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl<br />For a period of 50 years - yes 50 years - I had my own darkroom. I taught b&w photography for 32 years (college and some high school).<br>

I am now retired and LOVE what I can now do.<br />No more multiple enlargers (ala Uelsmann), no more fine tuning of secret chemical formulas, no more following elaborate notes on dodging and burning every print, no more wasting 20 sheets of 16 x 20 paper to get THE print (or the hours and hours it took).<br>

<br />MOST importantly, my Epson 3800 prints are better than anything I ever did in my darkroom (and I considered myself a master printer using many advanced techniques). And I had a half dozen shows with my fine art prints. I am getting old and slow (73) but I can still crank them out.<br>

To go first cabin you should:<br>

1- Take a class from your local CC in Photoshop CS4 - or at least Photoshop Elements<br>

2- Invest in a good monitor for precise color and tonal management. I use the NEC 2690WUXI - which is a wide gamut monitor. Then calibrate it with Eye-One Three (or similiar)<br>

3- Invest in a good printer. The Epson 3800/300 prints on 17" x 25" paper - ideal for 16 x 24 stunning b&w prints.<br>

Total investment - $2,500 to $3,000. However, you do NOT need hot and cold water mixer, huge sink, numerous trays, film developing cans, shelves of chemicals, controlled dust environment, drying cabinet, enlarger, lenses, lens boards, electronic timers, thermometers, fans, paper holders, drying racks, ferrotype plates, etc, etc, etc.<br>

There, convinced?</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

<p>"This whole 'purist' thing really bugs me. I'm guessing most 'purists' don't harvest their own pulp and coat their handmade paper with an emulsion of their own making from raw materials using handmade flasks and spoons."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the OP's perspective was clear: he is a "purist" of <em>b&w darkroom photography as it has been practiced for the better part of a century now;</em> he's not saying it's the only way to make images.</p>

<p>To say that one cannot be a purist in the practice of that kind of photography is akin to telling a "vintage sports-car purist" who chooses to drive a 1950s stick-shift convertible for 200 miles that if he was a true purist he'd walk the same distance, or telling an "acoustic guitar purist" who chooses a classic handmade non-electric that he should instead bang sticks onto rocks to make music.</p>

<p>In other words, "purist" can mean "being true to a well-established tradition"; it need not mean "doing things in the most primitive way possible."</p>

<p>Boy, some people really get defensive when others say "I like film" or "I like digital." (I like both!)</p>

[kyleweems]

<p>I'd just like to add that if Ansel Adams was still around.. he'd probably be shooting digital. Why? Because it gives great results and infinite control over what you're doing..</p>

<p>Images are great because the photographer had the vision and ability to capture it.. what you use to do it is a ways down the list.</p>

<p>Kyle</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>As this is the "Digital Darkroom" forum, you are probably going to get answers slanted in a certain direction. You should look around and see what can be done with digital B/W. Benefits have been described, easier to make local adjustments and control tonality. New papers, and printing technology as well as several years of developing post skills are really compelling.<br>

Still, personally I love the look of a really well done wet darkroom fiber print though I haven't done any for a while. Anyone who says there's not a difference is fooling themselves. Not that one is better, it's just that there is differences. <br>

Given that, when printing these days it's digital.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4783949">Kyle Weems</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 23, 2010; 10:09 p.m.<br>

I'd just like to add that if Ansel Adams was still around.. he'd probably be shooting digital. Why? Because it gives great results and infinite control over what you're doing..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He might dabble in it, but there is no way on God's green acre that you can have the flexibility of his Zone System when working in digital. How exactly can you do N +/- 2 "development" in digital and expect parity with B&W film? The answer is <em>you can't</em></p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>@Ty<br>

1_faster mean you can produce a print in less time you use to produce it in tradional darkroom..for the same quality. Why do poeple always think that fast mean cheap? fast could be 2hres less vs your normal 4hres.. still have the same quality..but faster. Nothing say that you need to slave to get good quality.</p>

<p>2_easier mean that you dont have to calculate ml, make sure that the water is at the good temperature, that it is a good quality, you dont have to work in the dark etc..again, easy doestn have to mean anyone can do it, it mean it simplify your life.</p>

<p>The OP ask for reason to switch.. those are also 2 good resaon, even if they dont have to do directly with quality of the print.</p>

<p><em>If you want the maximum fine art quality in a black and white photography, then you should stick with the silver halide process and make REAL black and white prints.</em></p>

<p>This comment certainly come from someone with a lot of experience in the tradional darkroom, and not a lot in the digital one..because in 2010 you can acquire the exact same result or even better with digital suffice you also have the correct experience and knowledge. Time change, film still have is plce, but digital is here to stay..dont be affraid of the change, just get the best out of it... people who still think that film is better just have a hard time with the new medium, and i can totaly understand that, but it is up to you to make it work.<em><br /> </em></p>

[iwao_sakurai]

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=4783949">Kyle Weems</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 23, 2010; 10:09 p.m.<br />I'd just like to add that if Ansel Adams was still around.. he'd probably be shooting digital. Why? Because it gives great results and infinite control over what you're doing..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Infinite control and great results to create an image? Is this what photography is all about nowadays, editing power?</p>

<p>"What matters is to look. Most of them don't look. They press the button...they identify. But to seek the meaning...beyond this or this...very few do it. You have to be receptive and it happens, that's all. If you want it you get nothing."<br>

"Can one learn to look? "<br>

"Can one learn how to have sex?? One day they'll create teachers, for everything!<br>

In the end, I prefer to draw"</p>

<p>Henry Cartier Bresson</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I don't know whether the OP continues to be interested in the thread but here goes.</p>

<p>For the years in which I've been producing monochrome prints, they've been made for me by the same printer on the same paper using the same chemicals, so a similar style ( after a period of experimentation at the outset). It costs me a bit especially if I want toned prints, but its been very much worth it and I have no doubt that the prints I've had have been better than I could have made myself given the learning curves involved. Now here's the "buts" - ignoring for a second the cost issue which won't be quite the same for someone printing in their own darkroom. </p>

<ul>

<li>There are some negs that just refuse to print well- or as well as I can make them look by scanning and working them up on screen anyway.</li>

<li>A lot of my professional work is stock. This means that today I have to photograph with a digital camera . I won't get into the reasons but its a given. That means that shooting b&w is not any longer as simple as putting another back on the Bronica. The Bronica might still be with me on most trips, but it may not be with me every minute. In short many of the monochrome print opportunities I have start out as colour digital photographs.</li>

<li>My preferred paper has gone and I haven't found a great alternative. As soon as i do it'll be a fair bet that it will go too? So what do I tell those who might be interested in my work- "well it won't be quite the same as you've seen because I've had to change the paper/chemistry/lab?"</li>

<li>Increasingly I like a slightly toned effect on my work. This increases the cost of prints significantly as a result of toner and labour costs.</li>

<li>Getting prints to look the same on subsequent orders isn't easy. What do I do - make all the prints I'm ever likely to need at one go ? Can't afford it. Its not efficient.</li>

</ul>

<p>Now if I find a way of printing digitally I can overcome all these issues. Problem is that till recently I didn't like the prints I could get, or more particularly I didn't like the appearance or feel of the papers. I've recently tried again using a digital fibre paper with a baryta coating from Harman and another from Ilford. In combination with latest K3 inksets (or the Canon equivalent) they give me prints I'm pleased to show people, and pleased to hang on a wall. I ran a test with five labs, three UK and two USA using a panel of photographs mostly starting life as digital but including some scanned MF film too. I got profiles and soft proofed each image for each lab/printer/paper combination I was using, bearing in mind that one lab uses a Canon printer, one used Ilford FB paper not Harman. I liaised with them over whether I needed to convert the files to their prifile; some said yes, others no. And then i got the prints back. </p>

<p>Not only are they all ( and yes I mean all) good prints, they are also pretty much indistinguishable across the five labs, They vary from slightly more expensive than my analogue prints to 20% of the price I pay for my silver prints the same size; the cheapest were as good as the rest and I had the prints in my hand via mail 72 hours after I uploaded them. I gave a presentation to a photographic society on Wednesday, and I mixed silver and digital prints mounted the same. People couldn't tell which was which, though to be fair they weren't really close. </p>

<p>So what's not to like? I get Baryta; I get Fibre, I get flat ( now there's a thing), and I get a fraction of the cost and far less elapsed time. I get a print area that doesn't any more seem shinier than the paper itself. I'll get free "toning". I'll get perfect repeatability which means less finished stock. I can tell a gallery in another country that I can replace anything they sell in a week. I can change labs when I feel like it. And its not even much extra work because I scanned and edited my best negs anyway to act as a print brief. Now I can just take that file, softproof, and upload it or take it physically to a lab. </p>

<p>So thats why I'll be doing a lot more digital monochrome prints in future. </p>

<p>And whats the investment cost? Zero. Everything I need to make the files, I need anyway and I don't have to buy printers, inks, papers; and I don't have to go throught the learning curve associated with learning to use an inkjet printer. There's no capital or experience-based barrier to entry. </p>

<p> </p>

[mjferron]

<p>If you are a pro working in today's insane, fast paced, over demanding, instant gratification market digital work flow is pretty much a must. Sure the outdoor types can still shoot Velvia and produce some great, commercially viable landscapes but traditional B&W printing is a craft and tradition that can't and shouldn't be replaced with a computer.</p>

<p>There will always be an upscale market appreciative of the time effort and skill needed to make a traditional silver print. (not that I'm good at it BTW.) Digital printing is like painting by numbers. Easier and probably better looking in the end for those who don't have the time, desire or space to become masters of the darkroom.</p>

<p>It's not a bad thing to make digital prints. Show me a superb 8x10 and I'll give you up to $35 for it. Show me your fine looking silver print and I'll give you $150 and treasure it that much more.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Had some prints made at the local camera store. The highlights were blown to the max. Got better prints from the Argyrotype process. So, if, you love the wet darkroom. Then, why change?</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Chris,</p>

<p>I would recommend that you choose one of your favorite B&W negatives and have Inkjet Mall make a custom print (or two) for you. It won't be cheap but it will give you a very clear idea of what is possible with digital B&W printing these days.</p>

<p>As a long time traditional B&W printer I would say we are almost there in our ability to produce digital inkjet B&W prints that are equal to what we can get out of the darkroom.</p>

<p>Silver gelatin prints and digital inkjet prints aren't equivalents but the B&W digtial inkjet print has matured.</p>

<p>As for being environmentally friendlier - I think that is a bit of a red herring.</p>

<p>Don Bryant</p>

<p> </p>

[aaron d]

<p>My apologies to the OP if all this is not helpful, I'm loving the discusion!</p>

<p>To Charles E. - I still blow pigments for all my cave paintings! Not because I'm a purist - I just love the taste of lapis lazuli!</p>

<p>To Ralph J. - No defensiveness intended, I said the purist thing bugs ME. Knock yourself out if you love silver prints. There is no denying how gorgeous they are - in the hands of a master. They can be every bit as mediocre as inkjets. I'm just saying to lose track of the image, the vision, the message in technique is a sad thing. The best photography isn't about what the prints are made of.</p>

<p>I got good results with silver back in the day (my Mom and I both think so), but I can do much better with inkjets. But only after working at it for some years....</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>Sorry but I had to laugh at Michael Ferron's post and his characterization of darkroom prints as "hand-crafted." Except perhaps for some alternative processes a darkroom print is no more "hand-crafted" than a digital print. You've used a machine (your camera) and chemical reactions to make a negative. You've put the negative in another machine (your enlarger) or in a contact printing frame. You've turned on a light for a certain length of time and moved a piece of cardboard or something else under the light to dodge, burn, or flash. Then you put the paper in some trays where another series of chemical reactions take place and eventually you have a print. Hand-made? Hardly. The only thing you've done with your hands is dodge and burn, which I do (and much more) with my hands in Photoshop.<br>

Making excellent prints is hard whether you use a darkroom or print digitally because either method takes talent, which not everyone possesses in equal amounts. The mechanics of a darkroom are simplicity themselves because there isn't all that much you can do. What separates a darkroom printer like John Sexton or Bruce Barnbaum from the rest of us is knowing what to do to make an excellent print, not actually doing it. Doing it is the easy part, especially in a darkroom where there just isn't that much you can do (get the exposure and color balance right in a color print or select the right contrast for the paper and then dodge, burn, and flash a b&w print). Photoshop offers almost infinite possibilities, which is why for me it's harder than printing in a darkroom.</p>

 

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

<p>"The only thing you've done with your hands is dodge and burn, which I do (and much more) with my hands in Photoshop."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That I'd like to see! (I use a <em>mouse </em> to dodge and burn in PS, which is great but -- unlike in the darkroom -- merely waving my hands in front of the paper during inkjet printing doesn't make specific areas of the print lighter or darker. Maybe in CS6 or 7....)</p>

<p>The fact that one can never wave one's hands exactly the same way twice (to dodge and burn in the darkroom) -- while two inkjet prints from the same file can be and usually are identical -- is probably what led the earlier poster to use the word "handcrafted" when describing a hand-burned and hand-dodged wet print. That seems fair to me. But this <strong>is </strong> the digital-darkroom forum and it would be surprising if there weren't more advocates here of digital than of traditional darkroom.</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>So Ralph, your mouse moves all by itself? Not mine - I use my hands to move my mouse (and my Wacom pen). And by moving my mouse with my hands I control where and how much I dodge, burn, make local saturation adjustments, change tones, change contrast, etc. etc. In terms of "handcrafted," not one bit different than what I did in the darkroom, just using a my hands to hold and move the mouse instead ofusing my hands to hold and move a piece of cardboard or whatever. <br>

I fail to see what the fact that I supposedly couldn't move my hands the same way twice (actually I could but no point in arguing over that) has to do with "handcrafted." It might have something to do with an argument that each darkroom print is "one of a kind" whereas a digital print isn't. But it doesn't make the print any more "handcrafted."</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>An Epson K3 ink printer (2400, 2880, 3800, ...) and Museo Silver Rag paper for printing B&W for total archival quality and wow! look will convince you. Also, that is an everyman's setup -- nothing that special about it.<br>

...oh yeah, the OP flew the coop.</p>

[mattb1]

<p>Have you seen the blacks some of the digital printers can get? Have you experienced the amount of control and the amount of craft you can impart to your image? Have you seen the diversity of papers available? You owe it to yourself to check it out. </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>He might dabble in it, but there is no way on God's green acre that you can have the flexibility of his Zone System when working in digital. How exactly can you do N +/- 2 "development" in digital and expect parity with B&W film? The answer is <em>you can't</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>When Ansel was doing one of his last books, computers were being used to make the duotone separations from the negatives. Ansel was apparently thrilled with the process and said that the final printed book looked better than his prints as he had more control over the entire process.</p>

<p>As to your second allegation "<em>you can't</em>" is totally false. There is nothing stopping you from shooting B&W film, and using the zone system (or whatever other system you choose) for exposure and development of the film. It then becomes a matter of scanning the film and doing the final post processing in the computer prior to printing. Black and white digital printing does not require you to use a digital camera and convert the image to black and white. People who make these kind of absolute statements should review the workflow possibilities prior to posting. </p>

<p>To the OP - if you really want to get into black and white digital printing, you need to dedicate a printer to the process. The Epsons work fine but the use of the K3 inks with the black and white mode will not get you even close to what can be done with John Cone's <a href="http://www.piezography.com/">Piezography</a> system. You replace all of the inks in the printer with very light gray to black inks and, depending upon the printer, add sepia and selenium tones so that you can get the final look you want. The real secret to it is to print using Quadtone RIP instead of the Epson printer driver.</p>

<p>For a test of the process, I would suggest contacting John Cone as he will do prints through his <a href="http://www.piezography.com/site/piezography-editions.html">Cone Editions Press</a> business. You will have to send him the negative as he will scan it using his drum scanner prior to printing - but, this will give you an indication of the absolute highest quality you can achieve by printing digitally. </p>