Time to give up the Darkroom?

[ray .]

I'm certainly nowhere near the point of giving up my M6, but lately

I've been wondering if I really want to keep making silver prints in

the darkroom. A while back I scanned a silver print and then made an

inkjet print from the image file on my $200 printer, and was quite

surprised at the quality of the results. Given a good film scanner

and higher quality printer, I wonder if the inkjet is really going to

be inferior to a darkroom print, or just different. I've noticed

some people here who insist on the qualities of film still choose to

make inkjet prints. Is it time to trade my Focomat for a good film

scanner and printer, or keep on keeping on with the darkroom?

 

Please note: Whatever nostalgic feelings of wonderment and mystery I

may feel mixing dektol, I think they're pretty much nullified by the

fact that I have at least an equally opposite feeling, like I'd

rather be doing something else. So you darkroomers might keep these

subjective touchy feely comments down to a minimum. Basically I'm

interested in what the results for effort quotient is. ;)

 

Thanks all.......

[chip l.]

IMO for color digital is a decent way to go for many a user. Scanners have reached a great point of quality, as well as printers like the Epson 2200 have neared (according to some met the wet darkroom). For BW unless one is willing to go with the Cone system (very expensive), getting good BW is hard. I have yet to see good BW without special inks and setup.

 

For BW I still find that the wet darkroom offers me the control and quality that I look for.

 

Just my two cents...

 

Chip

[bob haight]

The wet darkroom is an enjoyable time. Working on a computer to make prints is not really appealing to me. Like to leave the computer off on weekends.

[ralph_barker]

Nah, keep the darkroom, Ray. You'd miss all that time spent trying to get the last few crystals of Dektol to dissolve. ;-)

 

Seriously, while many aspects of digital manipulation and printing are far more convenient than darkroom work producing "real" prints, some things, like burning in, just work better with the negative in an enlarger. There are digital work-arounds, of course. One can do multiple scans at different settings, and digitally merge the results, or spend big bucks on multi-pass scanners that can extract image data from dense areas of the negative that affordable scanners just ignore.

 

Thus, I think it really depends on the nature of the work, how much control can be applied to keep densities within the range the scanner can see, and what the desired output needs to be (what you or your customers want). Note that I'm avoiding religeous discussions of archival qualities and such. (Want real archival quality? Try carbon pigment printing.) ;-)

[jay_.]

When I had a wet darkroom I spent hours and hours mixing chemicals, making test-strips, trying different contrast grades (and later, polycontrast filters), and ending up with wrinkly, ugly awful-looking prints. I packed it up and gave it all away years ago, except for the film-developing stuff. Recently I tried the digital route, and spent even more hours and hours sinking neck-deep in the quagmire that is Photoshop--even it's "lite" versions--not to mention interpolation software, printer software, scanner software...and I have now basically packed it up. From the experience I must say that I spent a *lot* more time in the digital darkroom getting the same awful prints--albeit they weren't wrinkled. My hat's off to anyone to whom photography includes making prints. Not me, never again.

[sheridan]

Having to be dragged into the 21st century I still wet print my

neg's and flatbed scan ( cheap Canonscan) for the web. I'm still

not sure whether with Photoshop or other program you can

dodge/burn and obtain the same subjective results with a B & W

film scan yet as you can in the darkroom. Perhaps a dual user of

both systems might post both results from a difficult

negative.<p> The trade off with film scanner of course is the

great convenience. I wouldn't sell the Focomat yet. Regards.

[todd frederick]

I've found a compromise that works for me. I've mentioned it before. Since I don't have a full darkroom set-up where I live now, it's too much hassle to set up and break down a dry darkroom, and cover windows and such.

 

So, I started scanning my negatives and prints, and playing with different kinds of paper for my printer including watercolor, linen, patterned and handmade papers. This is kind of a mixed media art technique, but I am enjoying it. You might try that.

[bobtodrick]

I think that now, especially in color (the Epson 2200 is just damn good), it does just boil down to what you feel comfortable with. One of the reasons I get to answer so quickly on this forum is because I sit at a computer all day long...the last thing I want to do in the evenings or on weekends is sit in front of a computer. As well I still get a kick out of watching the image (talking B&W here) slowly come up on the paper, listening to the whine of the printer just holds no magic for me.

[henry_chu2]

Ray, I've reached a compromise on a recent trip to Montevideo

and Buenos Aires. I was quite torn as to what film and cameras

to take--a handful of Leicas with slide, color negative and B&W

film or what? I ended up taking one M6 and three lenses and an

Olympus E-10. All my snaps were taken with the E-10. I found it

great to come home, download the contents of the discs onto the

computer, arrange the photos into folders and burn a CD. This

is in lieu of a stack of 4x6 color prints. With the Leica, I shot Tri-X

and I'm having a great time slowly printing selected negatives in

the darkroom. There is still a thrill watching an image pop into

being in the developer.

[doug herr]

IMHO, for color prints the darkroom is history. For me, one of the biggest selling features of digital printing is the degree of control over the medium's response curve. For example the legs and bill of this Snowy Egret<BR>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/sneg1.jpg"><BR>

</CENTER>would merge with the background without increasing the contrast in the darker parts of the image. With a darkroom print I might have used a higher-contrast grade of paper to get this separation, but by doing this I'd also blow out much of the delicate detail in the white areas of the picture. I used the Curves adjustment to increase the separation in the darker areas but left the mid-tones and highlights alone. It's like getting control like the Zone system, but much more powerful and flexible.<P>

Aside from the control of response curves, there's also dust & scratches. This Hummingbird photo is over 30 years old<BR>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/hbird.jpg"><BR>

</CENTER>

and has accumulated so much crud and so many scratches that I'd never consider making new darkroom prints of it. Not only can I eliminate the Dust & Scratches, I can SAVE THE FILE so I only have to do D&S once.<P>

[schopke]

If all you want to do is make prints I think digital is very nice.

 

However, within the art community many people do not consider photography art. If you would like to produce prints for sale as art an even greater stigma is applied to digital prints. Of those who do consider photography art many still do not consider digital prints as "Fine Art".

 

Furthermore, as silver photography MAY become an alternative process many already exhisting alternative processes already only can be accomplished in a wet darkroom. For example platinum, paladium, bromiol, etc. can only be achieved in a wet darkroom.

 

I really do not pursue "art for sale" currently and many alternative process can be accomplished with a digital print (i.e. solvent transfers, acrylic lifts, etc.). I for one love alternative processes. It allows for greater artistic expression. A photographer takes the time to get proper exposure, pleasing composition, and sharp focus. A photographer should also take the time and comtemplation to decide how they want their pictures presented. Straight silver or digital prints are not always the best medium for the image a photographer wants to convey to the viewer.

 

FOR ME IT IS NOT BETWEEN A DIGITAL OR A WET DARKROOM, IT IS BOTH!

 

Cheers!

[godfrey]

I moved to digital post-process and printing over a decade ago. The first home printing solutions were pretty crude, nowadays they are darn sophisticated.

 

Editing images digitally is FAR more precise and adjustable than working with dodging and burning in the darkroom. That's not to say that it is not work ... it's not an automatic process, it takes insight, skill and practice to do it well, just like darkroom work. What I love about it is that I can see what is happening, save it, change it, go back and do something over, easily and without wasting paper and chemistry.

 

For the "archival" community, the printing engines in the consumer space are still somewhat challenged. That's changing, but if you develop the image exactly to your specifications digitally, you can have it printed via a laser process like LightJet to gelatin-silver media easily. Best of both worlds.

 

Godfrey

[sal dimarco]

Ray, As for giving up your wet darkroom, it all depends on how good a printer you really are. If you are an excellent, a truly excellent printer no computer print will be really good. If you are an average or below average printer, ink jet printers are God sent. The only computer generated prints I saw, which I really liked, were Bill Allard's photos on exhibit at the Leica Gallery, a while ago. The prints were computer scans from his original slides, and the output device used a FUJI color paper which was chemically processed. A real light sensitive paper. I have not seen any ink jet printer which can match the quality of a good silver halide black & white print. They come close but no cigar.

[sam_portera]

I agree with Sal. If you have poor skills in the darkroom a computer and inkjet can solve a lot of your problems for you. But if you are a very skilled printer You simply can't reproduce on a PC what you can do in the darkroom.

[travis1]

..which means you are giving up your Componon-S?;))

 

why not have both Ray, digital and WDR. Provided the chemicals are still available, I see no reason to give up DR now, its just too easy;).

 

I recently got a glimpse of my friend's wedding album shot in digital blown up to 8x10 by some pro labs. The pixels are easily seen with a trained eye and there is an obvious lack of depth in the shadows and highlight separation especially those B/W shots. And my friend paid a bomb for it. And that's excluding the archival issues.

[doug herr]

<I>pixels are easily seen with a trained eye and there is an

obvious lack of depth in the shadows and highlight separation

especially those B/W shots.</I>

<P>

Both digital and wet printing can be done either poorly or well. I

have made plenty examples of poor prints either way.

[travis1]

Perhaps then, one should concentrate more on taking the picture than to worry about how to print it later.

[raymond_tai]

I am a Leica user and given Leica prices I am just three ASPH/APO lenses away from a Canon 1D and a few primes. Sell the scanner and budget out film and developing costs it is obvious to me that digital is the way to go given the quality available now and what Moore's law will offer us a year from now. That is if I shot color. For b&w I don't see how I can eliminate film and the wet darkroom unless I shot Scala and project.

[sal_ortega]

I don't have anything to add to most of the above with respect to inkjet printed film scans being at least equal to silver-based prints. Where digital had a distinct advantage is in set-up time. Nowadays, I have an hour or two to do printing in any given day. Using a traditional darkroom, setup and cleanup was at least an hour per session for B&W; for color a commitment of at least a day was needed to do color. For that reason I used a rental darkroom but that required at least a day committed to printing. With digital darkroom, set up time is minimal. Photo books, greeting cards and other settings where you can combine text and images are a major advantage of digital output. Ironically though, it takes me about as much time to do a digital based print as it did to do a silver-based one. Order requires energy.

[chip l.]

Rob,

 

I don't think that digital prints have as much stigma as it once did. A recent exhibit at the Hirshorn Museum in DC had a number of works that were clearly labled as inkjet and/or digital prints.

 

Also I have seen a number of pro photographers sites that the photographer is using the Epson 2200 to produce saleable prints. At prices that are up there sometimes.

 

For BW prints though there does seem to a bias towards silver gelatin and other alternative processes.

 

Happy snaps...

 

Chip

[lee_shively]

I was thrilled to make prints from my slides when I got my film scanner. I don't have state of the art equipment but my color ink jets look good. I'm less thrilled with my black and white ink jet prints. I've decided to reserve the computer for color photos and I've returned to the wet darkroom for black and white. If you like the results you're getting by printing black and white digitally, that's all that really matters. It's all photography.

[roger c]

Bear in mind that the longevity of digital prints isn't good - only a few weeks in the case of some colour prints. Fine if you can reprint them, but not good for your reputation if you've sold them.

[david j.lee]

ray,you should get rid of all your darkroom stuff now,because in a

few weeks you will have to pay good money just to find someone

to take it....you seem like a nice guy,so i will give you 50 shiny

dollars for everything you got, i just want it for sentimental

reasons,you know...

[beau 1664876222]

I was and am a strict B&W traditionalist, but I went over to digital printing because of a lack of free time and space (I live in NYC). It was a struggle at first, but I finally got an Epson 2200 and now my digital B&W prints have surpassed my darkroom ones. There is definitely something lost, a certain look, but the tonality and detail are just astounding. Overall I'd say that the digital B&W process has dramatically increased my love of photography, and since I'm not a pro that's what it's all about. Please note that I was not a masterful darkroom printer, and if you are, I'd stick with that.

[Allen Herbert]

The wet darkroom is an enjoyable time.

 

A little bit of magic.