Wet or dry?

[Bill Pierce]

It's pretty obvious from comments in several of these threads that the wet darkroom is rather rapidly losing to the dry, digital darkroom for printing images even among those of us that love the wet darkroom.

It's pretty obvious why most digital photographers are turning to the dry darkroom for prints - not too many other simple choices. But I wonder why film photographers are turning to it for prints.

I shoot both film and digital. It's easier for me to maintain a single printing system for both. And I do believe we have more controls in digital to produce the print we want. While the life expectancy of inkjet prints has been a worry, the right inks and the right paper, especially in black-and-white, look like they are going to give us long lasting prints if we display and store them properly.

Every day I promise myself that I'm going to go back into my wet darkroom and make some prints. But I end up cleaning the sink, dusting the enlarger and going back to my computer and inkjet printer.

I wondered which way you folks are going. Wet or dry? It might benefit all of us to learn from each other the way our world is going. And why. Then we can let the conversation sink to the bottom and discuss workflows.

Bill

[migtex]

Dry.
Since I got my first Digital in 1998 the Wet went down the tubes, literally.
The smell of rotten vegetables is not allowed in the house any more!
Planning to get the HP B9180 near future for those B&W on Ilford paper.

[M4streetshooter]

Dry now...and for some time actually.
My Leica enlarger sleeps gently in the dark. The only time I go wet is if I have to do a Platinum print. Digital is still to costly for my Deardorff.

The dangerous thing that happened to me as far as printing goes...was and is...repeatability....in the wet room, making an edition of prints is very difficult and there is always a certain amount of variation that becomes acceptable between prints. In digital...just hit how many prints you want and there's very little difference between any prints...

I always dreamed of working like Bresson...just go out and make images and just edit what my assistant prints...I had that for some time with college students but now...I work....process the files and send them online to my lab...in a few days...I edit and have prints......damn hard to beat brother.........

at night, I still dream the smell of fixer in the air.....all my chemicals are bottled tight and maybe someday.....somebody will find a use for them...but probably not me......later...shooter

[oscroft]

Hmm, well, I've been doing only scanning and inkjet printing for quite some time now, but for b&w it's just not the same (not even with fancy greyscale inks), so I'm inching slowly back towards setting up a wet darkroom again - my first concrete step a few weeks ago was to buy an enlarger lens from eBay.

[Shac]

Bill - I've gone dry and despite having a great wet darkroom. I still shoot some film and scan it in either with a Nikon coolscan for 35 or a flatbed for 2 1/4 and 4x5.
Why? - a few reasons. 1) Although I was very happy with my B&W prints (I've always had my own darkroom and printed for over 50 years) I find like you, greater control over what I am after (now that I use Quadtones in CS2) and greater repeatability. 2) I seem to be able to develop more creativity in my printing. 3) Last but not least, I enjoy dry printing over wet printing.

I need to upgrade my printer - but that's a way off for now.

Cheers
David

PS thanks for all your great photo-writings (& images) which I hve enjoyed and continue to enjoy

[Finder]

I run a wet darkroom for color and monochome. I prefer the results. While digital printing gives more control, I find wet handles shadows and highlights better. Both produce excellent prints. I don't think there is a great mystery about workflow.

[PlantedTao]

wet.
I'm currently trying to make a wet darkroom. I have been able to pick up most of the equipment used and in great shape for dirt cheap. Next up is a sink and temp regulator, some lights and then just building the thing. (in the meantime, I rent)
I spend all day at the computer for my job. I dont want to go home and do my hobby on this damn machine too. I like the enviroment, the feel, movement, physically creating my photo. This has a lot of appeal to me and since it is my hobby, I'm in no hurry, nor am I trying to produce in mass.
If I could produce several solid prints that could go up on my wall a year or that I could exhibit at small local art shows / gallerys - I would be happy :)

Cheers.

Jason

[eli griggs]

Bill, I have recently started up a small wet darkroom because I love to do the work the process entails. In this age of instant information, I find that more options are easily at hand for experimenting with different materials, different effects and the mutual support online is a terrific motivator. Where as in the past I was locked into the selection of Kodak and Ilford products, today I am compounding my own chemistries as needed, such as Ansco 130, D-76 and Parodinal and I love the control/freedom this allows me.

Having said that, if I had the means to buy a top quality b&w digital printer and a first quality color printer, together with film scanners, I would. These would not be for replacing the wet darkroom, rather I think I would want them for the dog work, stuff for family, digital contact prints, and one-offs that I felt did not merit the labor that a good fiber-based wet print entails. I think that I would take the position that digital printing is a good replacement for rc printing.

I doubt I would want to bother much with digital tweaking of images from film. Perhaps if I at some point invested in a good digital camera, I might want to do more than play some with the Apple, but I doubt it.

Eli

[rardinger]

Both. I photograph for my own personal expression and enjoyment so a high volume workflow and output is not too important. I use the final print ("fine print") as the endpoint to guide the choice of methods I might use.

I like to use small camera over large ones and like to carry as little as I can when traveling. A few rolls of film usually take up less room than cards, batteries, chargers, image vaults/computers, etc.

I use B&W film and film cameras for short trips, trips that are not primarily photographic, trips not likely to require miltiple security checks and for a lot of local, walk around photography.

I use digital cameras when I think the images will be ones I would want in color, on longer trips that in the past would require me to carry a lot of film, on most long distance travel and almost any time I would use flash.

I have a home darkroom and develop my own B&W film and make traditional proofsheets. It is faster to make a dozen proof sheets the traditional way than scanning (with my current flatbed scanner). Currently, based on the proof sheet images will then scan negatives for printing via the computer.

I have the option of printing traditionally but find the quality I can currently get on the computer to be better than I am able to do in the darkroom for many negatives. I can also print to a larger size via the computer (my archival washer is an 11 x 14 size and is the functional print size limiter in the darkroom).

I find it harder to spend the time printing in the traditional darkroom given my feeling that I can make a better print with the computer. If I truley felt that my traditional prints were better most of the time I would have no problem investing the time in the tradional darkroom.

It has taken me quite a bit of work over the years to get ink jet B&W printing to be at the very acceptable level that it currently is. Overall I like the look of scanned B&W film and inkjet prints better than almost anything else I can produce.

I like digital color capture and ink jet color printing better than any previous color printing method I had done previously. I am currently working to get the ink jet prints made from digital captures converted to B&W looking as good to me as the scanned film does.

I have spend a good deal of time over many years learning traditional photography and have spen a lot of time and effort in the last few years learning digital imaging. I had anticipated working totally with digital capture/printing at this point but still found very valid, for me , reasons to keep at least B&W film as part of my "tool kit". Perhaps this will change in the future.

[vincentbenoit]

I wondered which way you folks are going. Wet or dry?Dry for the moment, but only because it's more compatible with a full-time job as a biomedical engineer. Am slowly putting together a full-fledged darkroom, with the aim of re-printing all these negs "the proper way" when I have more free time...

Vincent

[Dektol Dan]

Dry.
Since I got my first Digital in 1998 the Wet went down the tubes, literally.
The smell of rotten vegetables is not allowed in the house any more!


Having been literally raised under a ruby red in my father's darkroom as a child, spent a good part of my childood in the dark for an annual, paper, pursued two degrees in the arts and missed way too many nice sunny spring and summer days in a gawdawful stinky dark room all I can say is 'Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty I'm free at last!'

However, I still shoot primarily film. My hell has taught me to see the difference between wet vs dry, and I'm stuborn and vain enough to hold on to what I can see is best. For years I was locked into a black and white world. I DREAMED I could shoot color with the same freedom and cost as black and white and the computer has provide that for me.

If I had all the money I've blown on 'state of the art' scanners and computers from 1998 I could have one hell of a wet lab right now, but I have no regrets!

[topoxforddoc]

I'm both wet and dry. Prints from silver negs from my M6/M2/CLE are wet from my V35 and Nova processor. Images from film for the web are scanned on my minolta 5400. Images from my R9/DMR are of necessity dry. I'm afaraid dry prints from silver hegs just don't do it for me.

Charlie

[keithwms]

For black and white: wet. By a long shot.

Frankly I don't think there is enough appreciation among some new photographers for how versatile b&w wet printing is. We now have wonderful tools like digital negs, LVT etc. that have opened up a whole new world of possibilities in wet printing.

Why finish wet, even if you shoot digitally?

(1) Highly individual output- the printer leaves an individual process "stamp" on each and every print and it isn't just a signature. No two wet prints are alike;

(2) Alt processing: from cyanotypes to tintypes to Pt/Pd or just plain old toned silver gelatin, monochrome has a vast versatility;

(3) archival-ness: I do not bother to argue that wet prints are more archival than pigment ink, they are similar. But the simple fact is that there are very, very old silver gelatin prints that are worth a fortune. I keep asking people to tell me what is the best price anyone ever got on a pigment ink print and as yet I have gotten no answer. The answer for silver gelatin is in the millions of dollars. Unfortunately, pigment ink prints will never be worth as much because a digital file can be 'ripped' and reprinted in a [virtually] indistinguishably identical way, in an unlimited quantity... even if the photographer didn't authorize it. A digital file is a very volatile thing, and now that we have inexpensive and great flatbed scanners, a print can be duped very easily as well. Can you tell the difference between an original print and a flatbed duped one? The answer is no. So don't be surprised to see your prized dry print for sale on ebay! In the case of a traditional wet print there are ways to date the print and authenticate it and show that it was made via a particular process; these kinds of things are part and parcel of the medium. And these things add up to make each wet print much more individual and therefore more collectible....

(3b) ...and moreover, the "demise" of wet printing is actually making it more valuable and more collectible- think about how much a decent daguerreotype is worth now, even if the composition is crap!!! Seriously, I think more digital shooters should consider wet output for the reason that the output is more individual from print to print;

(4) The "look": This is indeed hard to quantify. But I have been given high end pigment ink prints that I thought showed metamerism and the image appeared plasticky. I personally like matte fiber- I like the way the image seems to reside in the paper not on it, and that there is no plasticky sheen. Yes I know about Hahnemuehle. I'll still take my matte fiber because I can tone it before my eyes. It's not all about Dmax, if that were the sole determining factor then I would use pigment ink on glossy. But there is a lot more to a print than Dmax.

I could go on and on but those are the main reasons. I now really enjoy hybrid processing. I just very recently discovered LVT and what it can do for me and feel like I am getting the best of both worlds... but I definitely prefer to finish wet.

Ultimately, I always offer the same bottom line / caveat: photographers should pick the camera/film/sensor/process that makes them feel creatively productive. That is an individual thing. There is no right or wrong answer, so don't flame me! For me the choice is wet, by a long shot. And yes I do have a pigment ink epson; I use it to make digital negs for traditional wet printing.

[aad]

Dry here-develop my B&W, and do all my own scans now, and print what I want to hang. I'm doing it all for my own fun, and never did much wet printing anyway.

But I don't use a digital camera anymore.

[Harry Lime]

Love the look of wet prints, mainly because I like glossy fiber paper.

The main problem is that I don't have the room for a permanent darkroom.
Set up and tear down is a... pain.

The second problem is that I do not have the time to become a serious printer. I can make a good straight print, but forget about split printing etc.

Soooo, I need an altenative:

1) ILFORD GALERIE FB DIGITAL
(http://tinyurl.com/h4tgh)

Real glossy, fiber paper that you can run through something like a Fuji Lightjet. Workflow is as follows:

a) Flilm capture
b) High quality scan
c) Digital manipulation in Photoshop or similar package
d) Output via Lightjet.

This solution should deliver the equvalent of a traditional silver print.

I gave up on black and white prints on Fuji Crystal Archive RC.
Looks like black and white printed on color RC stock. Yeach!


2) NEW NEGATIVE

a) film capture
b) high quality scan (Imacon,Nikon 9000ED, drumscan)
c) Digital manipulation (dodge, burn etc) in Photoshop or NUKE.
d) Digital file is sent to a Kodak Rhino LVT to generate a new negative on TMAX100 (up to 8x10 in size).
e) Traditional wet print on silver fiber paper from new negative.


3) INKJET PRINTS.

The new 7 carbon ink system for GLOSSY paper from Jon Cone. Appears to deliver prints with a dmax as good or better than a traditional fiber print.

[d_ross]

I do both, and why wouldn't you! both wet and dry have benefits. I prefer the look of analogue prints, but digital printing makes super larger size prints much more accesible. When people say to me that an inkjet print looks as good as a silver gelatin print, I tell them to take both outside or put them under a really bright light then tell me :) The fact that two prints are rarely the same is also a positive, I'll take randomness over push button repeatability any day, and I belive buyers of photography feel the same way!

But the best thing about the darkroom to me, apart from any aesthetic reason, is that its far more enjoyable than sitting here, I like the physical nature of darkroom printing, and the solitude of the darkroom.

[FrankS]

Wet. B+W. I'm a traditional curmudgeon! :)

I scan negs or prints only to post here or to email friends and family.

[JNewell]

Repeatability and much less physical infrastructure (though not necessarily cost).

Having said that...

...there is something quite magic, literally, about looking at a piece of paper in a tray and "seeing what develops."

There isn't any magic about an inkjet.

[jlw]

I'm all dry, but I don't especially like it. All my wet-darkroom stuff is still out in the garage just in case I come to my senses (and suddenly acquire a lot of spare time.)

The main reason I went dry was that I was shooting most of my photos with a digital camera anyway. A significant secondary reason was that after Agfa discontinued Portriga-Rapid, I was never quite as satisfied with my wet prints as I had been.

The sharpness and tonal range of a black-and-white dry print (on my HP B9180) aren't up to what I could get with a wet print, but I'm able to come up with something that approximates the Portriga-Rapid "look" (and without those nasty greasy spots I'd sometimes get when the prints dried!)

[Trius]

I have studiously NOT ready any replies to the OP ...

WET for me, when I can reconstitute my darkroom. Why ...???

So far my hands (the Zen of working with tangible photo stuff ... negs, chemicals, paper, washers, drying racks, etc.,) are much more capable than a mouse and a screen. I concede that using PS (or other post tool) can yield a file that is reproducible, but somehow it lacks soul to me. I know the end result of a mostly (if not all) digital workflow can be wonderful, but I just don't connect with it, at least yet.

Given the years (days?) I have left on this blue marble, I just feel like sticking with what I truly know how to do. The only barrier is what materials are available to me. Once I have the space again available, I'll have to replace what is no longer available. Let's see ...

Film for originals? Check, still available.
Film chems? Check, still available.
Zone VI Brilliant paper? Oops, not available, I'll need a substitute.
Amidol paper developer? Check, still available if a bit difficult to acquire. Other formulae available, not to worry TOO much. (PT/PD still going strong if I so desire ...)
Stop bath, fixer, hypo eliminator, water? Check, still available.
Time? Same amount of time available for "analog" as well as digital. Whether a final print takes 1 hour or 4 ... who cares?

Earl
Neo-pagan Buddhist in the darkroom, developing light.

[Rob-F]

Wet for B&W. I enjoy engaging in the process. Watching the image come up in the developer. Washing, sponging, drying, listening to the FM radio on my darkroom stereo the whole time. It's another world in there. And of course I like the results.

But for color, it's dry. I really appreciate being able to shoot direct to digital, plug the camera into the computer, play with the image in photoshop elements, and hit the print button. No fuss, no muss. No expensive, messy chemicals. (Only ink that costs $5000 per gallon--ever do the math on that?) And the results are not bad at all!

[Ronald M]

I have one decent digi cam and more film ones than I care to count.

I am reopening the darkroom very soon as the digi thing is wearing of a bit.

Ink prints don`t thrill me and neither does turning it over to some lab.

What I really want is an enlarger that takes a digi file that I made. Life would be perfect.

[RichC]

Dry.

In fact, I've never used, let alone developed, film.

I'm pretty new to photography, and only started in 2005, when I bought myself a digital camera. If digital hadn't come on the scene, I wouldn't have taken up photography.

I have no interest whatsoever in traditional chemical photography and the wet darkroom, though I'm definitely not denigrating it, nor those who prefer it: it's simply just not for me, and (I'm speaking solely about myself here) I really can't see what I would gain from using film - all can see are cons compared with digital. (And digital print technology is advancing rapidly, so any differences in quality between silver and digital are fast disappearing, e.g. the new baryta inkjet papers.)

That said, though I'm fully digital, I do like to work in an analogue way with a manual camera - hence the reason I use a Leica M8 (my only camera).

As to what I do in my digital darkroom, I try and restrict myself to enhancing a photo as opposed to changing it: I'll happily dodge and burn or add a virtual ND filter, but replacing a white sky with a more interesting one or cloning things (excepting dust spots!) is anathema.

However, unlike some digital photographers, a computer file is not enough for me: a photo only becomes "real" once I've printed it, which I do using archival paper/ink, so that I have something physical and tangible.

I suspect there are a lot of new photographers like me for whom "wet" photography is just an irrelevant historical technique encountered only in books...

[David Goldfarb]

Wet and getting wetter (i.e., exploring more alternative processes--mainly albumen).

I just don't care for the look of inkjet prints, but I have seen some hybrid prints that interest me--Keith Taylor's multilayer gums for Cy DeCosse, which are made using digital separations. I don't make digital negs, myself, though.

I have a couple of scanners for putting things on the web, and I'll occasionally send a color transparency for a drum scan and a Chromira print, and I have a Coolpix 990 that I use like a scanner for archiving documents mainly, but that's the extent of my digital photography activity.

[Harry Lime]

[QUOTE=nikonhswebmaster]You can also have prints made on traditional chemical papers from digital files. This is common for gallery prints, where resistance to ink jet prints continues to be very high among collectors. You very seldom see ink jet prints in New York City gallery shows, almost always Cromogenic prints. Most labs prints are Fuji Crystal Archival Paper and Duraflex for fine-art

Here is how Apeture describes a C print:


C-prints are ok for color, but I think they look horrible for black and white.

For one thing Crystal Archive is an RC paper.

Second it is color print paper, so it never really looks totally neutral, when you are doing black and white.

As I mentioned earlier, Ilford has released a traditional glossy fiber paper for use in digital enlargers. This should deliver what many of us have been looking for. The control of digital image manipulation and traditional materials.

HL

[David Goldfarb]

elevatordigital.ca in Toronto is printing Lambda to the new Ilford digital silver gelatin FB paper. I haven't seen any prints using this process, but reports are very positive.

If you want a lab in New York for silver gelatin prints from digital files, you might look at http://www.precisionphotos.com/. They are mainly a headshot repro lab, but I know they have two DeVere digital enlargers, which can print digital to any B&W or color paper, but the size limit is about 20x24". I've seen prints using this enlarger, and they looked good. It's essentially a conventional enlarger with an LCD screen in place of the negative, hence the size limit, after which the raster pattern might become visible on the prints. It might be worth asking if they do custom work.

[Harry Lime]

There is also http://www.elevatordigital.ca/ in Canada and some labs on London that have profiled their Lightjet for fiber paper.

Not cheap, but the results can be very impressive.

[gumanow]

I've got back to wet. Like my time in the cave. Can play my music as loud as I want. Will not answer the phone. No stupid Windows or OSX to get in my way and I feel like I'm following in the masters footsteps.

I work as a product manager in the computer field and like to get away from computers as much as possible... at least for my art.

[Bill Pierce]

I am immensely proud of this thread. A controversial subject and no one is flaming anyone else. There has not been a "silver is dead" entry. And there hasn't been a "digital is the devil" reply. This conversation has been more civil than some on the same subject in my living room.

Often, in my world, where you are working for someone else, film and paper vs. digital and inkjet is decided by the client - or, in the case of news, the deadline. Here people are doing what they like to do.

In the latest issue of "finity," David Vestal talks about a Kodak poll in which 9,000 pro and semi-pro shooters replied and approximately 3/4's preferred film. Looking through what those polled said, David points out no true technical advantage of film is mentioned. But...

What you see in our discussion is that many of us enjoy the whole darkroom process of developing and printing with it's solitude and a process that unveils the image at a slow pace that helps you understand it. It's not a question of advantage or better; it's a question of pleasure. And many of us enjoy essentially the same process with a little less solitude and probably better air quality sitting at our computers.

There is one advantage to black-and-white film over digital - exposure latitude, tonal range, whatever you want to call it. Even when you print digital files in black-and-white, your printing an image with a tonal range that comes closer to Ektachrome than Tri-X. That should improve as we go to digital cameras with higher bit counts and a few other image tweaks.

And I will differ with those that say inkjet prints have serious limitations to their quality. I think that was true; I don't think it is true any longer. The wet darkroom has been around for years. Advances in quality now come very slowly. The dry darkroom is just starting and so, for awhile, progress will be very rapid. I have had fellow photographers look at a good digital print and say, "Is that silver or digital?" I mentioned previously a somewhat similar reaction showing some prints to a museum. After the prints were put away I asked if anyone realized that some prints were silver and some were inkjet. Nobody did. I don't think this is a sign of ignorance. I think it's a sign that someone was looking at prints, not to see how they were made, but whether the pictures were any good.

Bill

[varjag]

I don't print, and am 100% film shooter.

[Finder]

I think it's a sign that someone was looking at prints, not to see how they were made, but whether the pictures were any good.

Of course. The result is the thing. The process is only relavant to the creator. And the creator is responsible to control that process. This is why the film/digital issue is silly - why does it matter how you get there? There is not a single technical point that validates a process.

[David Goldfarb]

The process affects the result, so the process is important, even if you emphasize the result.

[RichC]

Actually, there is one con about the digital darkroom that niggles at me (despite being a digital-only photographer): with the advent of digital processing in Photoshop etc., there seems to be an increasing emphasis on technical print quality to the detriment of content; an emphasis that I don't think is particularly healthy.

For example, I was watching someone critique prints for inclusion in an exhibition, and he rejected one for excessive digital noise and another for slightly blown highlights; but he included other more technically perfect prints that said very little and didn't have half the emotional content of the two he passed over.

Ultimately, a photograph is a means of communication, and needs to be considered in the round: technical perfection is a worthy goal, but may not be the most important factor in a particular photograph.

I guess there are a several reasons for this change in emphasis, such as the ease of making some corrections to digital images (wide exposure latitude with raw files, cloning) and the fact that, before digital, most people had others develop and print their films - unlike now, when even my mum messes around with photos from her compact digicam on her PC and prints them herself.

Anyone any thoughts on this?

[Finder]

For example, I was watching someone critique prints for inclusion in an exhibition, and he rejected one for excessive digital noise and another for slightly blown highlights; but he included other more technically perfect prints that said very little and didn't have half the emotional content of the two he passed over.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Helmut Gernsheim made a similar comment about a Royal Academy of Art member who said a certain young artist will not have an exhibition there. The "expert" said that there was no detail in the shadows. Fortunately, the snub did little to influence Edward Weston's career.

[Trius]

a process that unveils the image at a slow pace that helps you understand it. It's not a question of advantage or better

True enough. But slowness does have, IMO, an inherent advantage. Your statement implies that "better" results are obtainable at a slower, more contemplative pace ... because of a more complete understanding resulting from time. That's not to say that one can't take their time in front of a computer display, or in the digital printing process. It's just that it seems less common, if not harder.

Oh ... and I love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like victory. :D

[rpsawin]

Bill,

I do both and prefer wet. I've been without a wet darkroom for awhile and I'm going to rent some wet dr space until I get my wet dr set up...I miss it and the dry dr is just not my first choice. BTW...I am just now "happy" with the dry results. I just don't enjoy the digital process.

Bob

[gregg]

I've put away the enlarger. 35mm is developed in the darkroom but scanned for printing on an Epson 2200.

8x10 film is still developed and contact printed in the darkroom. Pretty rudimentary setup... My existing flatbed is an Epson 2450 which can't handle 8x10 on the glass or I'd probably be printing them digitally too. I'm saving pennies for the Epson 750 or Microtek Artixscan M1 (if it ever hits the market).

Gregg

[Dale D]

Bill,

I print in a wet darkroom.

I spend a significant amount of time on a PC at work, and the last thing I want to do when I get home is stare at a monitor for several more hours. 5 years ago, I realized that I had gotten away from having any hobbies, and felt the need to do some kind of craftwork with my hands in order to keep my sanity. I stumbled onto photography, and it has become a wonderful outlet (the alternative was buying an old MG or Fiat to restore, but space limitations nixed that...). When I print in the darkroom, I feel as though I'm crafting something with my hands... and I just don't get that feeling with digital printing. Others have characterized this as a "tactile" feel, and I agree with that.

My wet printing has nothing to do with denigration of digital; in fact I don't know how anyone can fail to be impressed with the improvements in quality. I just enjoy the wet process more (not the mention that at one point I had tendinitis from hammering away at the PC in the office...).

Dale

[eli griggs]

I think Dale's post hits upon an important point in that some of us look at the labor it takes to make a quality wet print quite differently than the work that goes into making a digital print. Taken a bit further, while the man-hours it takes to tweak a PS image may exceed those put into a wet print, once the final digital file is 'in the can', any number of dry prints can be run off with the push of a button. It is conceivable that two hundred years from now any Tom, Dick or Helen will be able to print up unlimited numbers of images produced today. Rightly or wrongly, those prints will likely have little real value beyond the cost of processing.

When a wet print is produced, there are much greater limitations on the photographer's ability to produce quality images in great numbers, even when the actual work is given over to a master darkroom worker. As a result the work is often more highly valued.

IMO, it is the difference in coffee cups produced in the many tens of thousands at Corning and the hand-thrown mugs of a skilled potter. The Corning cups may be technically perfect, but the labor of the potter is still recognized something unique, even though mugs produced today are not perfectly the same as those produced ten years ago.
I think deep down, most people feel much more connected to things produced by other people than to things produced by processes they see as automation and I think that they always will. When it comes to art, it's a human, not technology thing and some of us want to keep that connection by staying wet.

Eli

[maggieo]

IMO, it is the difference in coffee cups produced in the many tens of thousands at Corning and the hand-thrown mugs of a skilled potter. The Corning cups may be technically perfect, but the labor of the potter is still recognized something unique, even though mugs produced today are not perfectly the same as those produced ten years ago.
I think deep down, most people feel much more connected to things produced by other people than to things produced by processes they see as automation and I think that they always will. When it comes to art, it's a human, not technology thing and some of us want to keep that connection by staying wet.

Eli

Interestingly enough, a similar argument was used against photography as an artistic medium during the early 20th century. It was believed that photography was a mechical process, and as such, had nothing to do with the visual arts of painting and drawing. A machine drew the pictures and any number of copies could be made of those results. And this was back in the day of wet plates, gum prints and platinum prints!

That said, I allways enjoyed my time in the darkroom and the sound of the water running through my print washer. But there's something to be said for being able to transmit a file off to a favored lab and have a 16"x20" print of Stockholm's city hall arrive at my parents' door in Nebraska while I'm still in Sweden.

[MikeCassidy]

The thread is two weeks old but anyway...

Wet: process my own film and prints. I've a M3.

I scan my negatives but that that's more as a larger contact sheet than anything else. I'm a geek so I've been hestitant about going digital - fearful that I would never process film or print again.

At the moment I want to get my darkroom skills back and in fact better than there were before I jump to digital. I was a photogrpaher in the Army and did some shooting for the NY Times. I stopped.

I've been taking courses at ICP and the three instructors I've had have better darkroom skills than I did at my best. I never used two developers and water bath and variable contrast papers had just started being used. I know Photoshop because of my occupation; my 'wet' printing skills need to increase before I jump to digital, if I ever jump.

The thought of carrying a camera that is B&W and color and has multiple ISO does excite me. The best I do with my M3 is carry several rolls of film and switch from say Tri-X to Pan F mid roll. Also being able to preview the shot at the moment of shooting is very appealing.

BTW, I was looking at a book of photographs of the Great Wall and many were printed on rice paper.

I don't really care how the image was made as long as its a good image; as someone I know said when we were discusiing developers: Its content, not film not developer. To extent that statement: "Its content not whether it was taken on a digital or film cemera."

[3js]

Wet forever. Show me one 100 years old ink jet print, and I´ll show you a liar. Sorry, but they really just want to sell those printers to you... Wake up.

[Bill Pierce]

Wet forever. Show me one 100 years old ink jet print, and I´ll show you a liar. Sorry, but they really just want to sell those printers to you... Wake up.

Sorry, I have to disagree with that. Obviously there are no 100 year old ink jets, yet. But there will be. And, sadly, there will be silver prints that fall apart before that. Long lasting silver depends on proper fixing, proper washing, perhaps toning and more washing, proper drying and proper storage. You have only to work for a news organization to see plenty of prints that don't meet that criterion turn brown, lose highlight detail and suffer from the ailments of old age fairly early in their short lives.

Ink jet prints need the right paper, the right inks, degassing, perhaps coating and the proper storage and display conditions. I've followed Henry Wilhelm's work from the time he was a civil rights photographer, a producer of film and print washers, a researcher, author and consultant on the storage and display of still film and moving images and then printed digital images. Although I was offended to see a rather snippy remark about Henry in these forums, I think paying attention to his work will allow a number of digital photographers to leave an archive of long lasting work behind them. Those who print in black-and-white may have prints with a projected life two to three times greater than the predicted life of similar prints made with color inks.

And when we come to conventional, chemically processed color, Crystal Archive is unique in coming in with a life, by Wilhelm standards, of 100 years. Most other color materials fall below that. The right ink jet print can become the leader, doing better than the chemically processed papers.

Bill

[Finder]

And when we come to conventional, chemically processed color, Crystal Archive is unique in coming in with a life, by Wilhelm standards, of 100 years. Most other color materials fall below that. The right ink jet print can become the leader, doing better than the chemically processed papers.

Bill

??? Kodak Eudura Paper has a archival life of 100 year. 200 in dark storage. That is the current c-print paper being used.

[Bill Pierce]

??? Kodak Eudura Paper has a archival life of 100 year. 200 in dark storage. That is the current c-print paper being used.

Those are Kodak's figures from their tests. You should see the figures they released for the older C paper, which was no archivist's favorite.

Here's an article that goes into more detail. You'll find other material on the web. Many of the manufacturers have submitted materials to Wilhelm and accept their relative standing in his published test results. Kodak uses different standards for their test procedures and comes up with different figures.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/kodak_test/InkJetArt_KodakTestMethods.pdf

Bill

[Finder]

Those are Kodak's figures from their tests. You should see the figures they released for the older C paper, which was no archivist's favorite.

Here's an article that goes into more detail. You'll find other material on the web. Many of the manufacturers have submitted materials to Wilhelm and accept their relative standing in his published test results. Kodak uses different standards for their test procedures and comes up with different figures.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/kodak_test/InkJetArt_KodakTestMethods.pdf

Bill

Old inkjet inks and papers don't do very well just like old c-print material. Dye transfer was great. I have 20-year-old color Polaroids that are vivid. But that old c-print paper, like Dye-Transfer, is not around and so rather a moot point in terms of printing today.

Yup, and different test methodologies produce different results. As Wilhelm Research points out there are a lot of factors in the life of a print. So my Kodak print can last 200 years in dark storage or fade in five years on the dashboard of my car. So can an inkjet. I don't happen to stick my color prints on my fridge, which seems to be a condition Wilelm Research thinks is a viable option so maybe their numbers don't reflect my prints (no pun intended). But that is the nature of test and why the testing method is transparent (there again, no pun...).

So where does this leave us - nowhere or everywhere. Prints can last a long time if printed on an injet or with chemistry. How long they last depends on how they are treated. There is no reason to suppose that chemical technology will stop while inkjet technology alone will advance.

[Bill Pierce]

Agreed. My feeling is that inkjet will advance relatively quickly, just because it's at the beginning of its run. Silver will advance more slowly simply because its been around a long time.

Bill

[Finder]

Agreed. My feeling is that inkjet will advance relatively quickly, just because it's at the beginning of its run. Silver will advance more slowly simply because its been around a long time.

Bill

Possibly. Ink and dye technologies have been advancing together for a long time. Inkjet was not made in a vaccuum as it is founded on older technologies. It is hard to predict where technology will go or how far it can develop. The fact that any of it works is amazing to me. Certainly there is more effort and money being poured into Inkjet, but that may disappear if another technology proves easier and cheaper - archival quality is not the most important factor in consumer products as dye transfer has shown.

I don't think I could sway folks away from c-printing today. I do a lot of large-format inkjets. The quality is very nice. But it is not the same as an optical print. That is not saying one is better than the other, but I feel the process adds to the result. While that is not what most ever see consciously, I do believe there is a very subtle subconscious affect.

[Dogman]

I'm wet. Totally.

To clarify that, I have to say I no longer do photography for a living. If I had to depend on photography to put dinner on the table again, my photography would be dry.

But, I don't have to depend on photography for my daily bread. I can do it however I please. I started out shooting black and white and printing in the bathroom and I've come full circle. The difference these days is that I now have better quality equipment in the bathroom than I did in the beginning.

Not that I have anything against digital. Except for the insipid overmanipulated photos posted all over the internet, that is. I think digital can be an expedient way to do high quality commercial photography and photojournalism. I just haven't warmed up to it as a routine way for me to take and make pictures.

One of the first things I did when I bought a computer several years ago was to buy a film scanner and a decent quality inkjet printer. For a couple of years, that was all I used. But I got bored with it and decided to go back to shooting only black and white and doing it the wet way. I few months ago, I bought a DSLR. Unfortunately, I'm not getting much use out of it. The whole process seems insubstantial to me. If I find a subject worthy of a picture, I'd rather shoot it on film. I like the tactile quality of negatives. I like looking on the shelf and seeing those boxes of negatives with labels on them instead of turning on the computer and locating a file. This afternoon I souped 11 rolls of HP5+ and FP4+. I liked it. I used to consider the processing of film to be the most boring part of photography. Now I actually like doing it. I don't get the same feeling of accomplishment when I plug a CF card into the card reader and click an icon with the mouse.

[df cardwell]

For other folks, I shoot digital and do inkjet. I'm switching to dye sub. It's like shooting color neg used to be. But more fun.

For me, I shoot film, and make fiber prints.

Time in the darkroom has a Liturgical function for me,
and without it, I can't shoot anything. Digital-for-work
puts me on the same side of the problem as my clients,
and THAT is a great relief.

The hybrid thing is new, and fills an ambition that I couldn't touch before.
35mm TX makes a cool palladium print, so does a little jpg file.

This is a lot of fun.

[Al Kaplan]

I'm staying wet. I know it, I understand it, I seem to burn and dodge and pick contrast filters without concious thought after doing it since 1961. Learning a whole new medium at this point makes little sense to me when there's such an ongoing rapid change in hardware with digital. My Omega B-22XL with a 50mm El Nikkor and 80mm Componon still function just fine. Best of all it's paid for, and has paid for itself God only knows how many times over. "If it ain't broke don't fix it!"

[lshofstra]

Both. Dry sometimes because there are often kids to mind and the computer bears both intrusions and breaks, wet because I much, much prefer it. Compared to my relatively simple inkjetprinter I get far better results, and it's more -what's the word- meditative, I guess...

[pesphoto]

Well, I have a space for mine now. Just gotta get it started. So Im in between right now.
http://www.paulshelaskyphotography.com/Photos/Random/futuredarkroom2.jpg

[nikon_sam]

How did I miss this thread???

Wet printing for me...watching the photo develop in the trays is the best part of Doing it Yourself...holding the final print...a good fiber based photo after it's been toned is a thing of beauty...and then giving that photo to the one it was intended for...

[santino]

wet printing!
unique, beautiful (if well done) especially lith prints :D

[Chris101]

I prefer the quality of well made silver prints and enjoy the process as well as long as I have a nice place to work. However I have spent the last year working on a hybrid process and I am impressed with the results. However the process does not begin to compare with the darkroom.

[John Noble]

Sopping wet.

I like the silver halide look, it's cheap, and it's faster since I'm not as tempted to try to make silk purses out of sows' ears.

Color is another matter: I shoot E6 and let someone else do the prints.

[Bill Pierce]

I have spent the last year working on a hybrid process and I am impressed with the results. However the process does not begin to compare with the darkroom.

Chris -

Could you elaborate on the "hybrid?" Is it scanning film and printing digitally? This seems to be getting quite popular.

Bill

[Steve Williams]

Professionally I work exclusively with digital tools. All my work is for publication, the Web, or for exhibit panels handled by designers. Because of this I have never really explored inkjet printing.

I maintain a wet darkroom at home for my personal work that for the past 15 years has been a simple TX, D-76, Dektol 1:3, fiber paper process. I used the same basic materials whether I was working with a view camera or the Leica. I abandoned testing and experimentation because all it ever did was create self doubt and lower output.

Working in the darkroom is a practice that energizes me once I start. It's quiet and slow, something that helps me shed some of the noise and chaos of daily life. It works much the same way on my spirit as riding my Vespa scooter does instead of commuting in my Ford Ranger truck.