B/W printing - in a darkroom or a digital print with a scanner & printer? [Archive]

Mackinaw

10-28-2007, 13:43

How about both? I find working in the darkroom very relaxing and love the give-and-take process of making a good print. I like the look of darkroom prints too.

At the same time I really like the ability to manipulate a print in Photoshop. Bringing out detail in shadows, eliminating dust specs, sharpening, etc. are all wonderful tools that hep produce some really outstanding prints. I imagine I'll be doing both for some time to come.

Jim B.

FrankS

10-28-2007, 13:53

darkroom for me

cmogi10

10-28-2007, 13:59

darkroom for me, no brainer.

MartinP

10-28-2007, 15:04

I have to work with computers for my job - I don't want to do so in my hobby. It would also cost a heap of money for scanners, printers and ink. For some web-page things or e-mails I scan 35mm negatives occasionally, then do as little as I possibly can to the files, but my (obsolete) digital p+s rarely gets used.

I ticked "darkroom", obviously.

robertdfeinman

10-28-2007, 15:06

My first generation pigment ink jet printer does a poor job on producing a neutral gray scale. I've developed a curve which helps restore the neutrality although it does make the image on the screen look odd.

Newer printers are supposed to do a much better job. My solution has been to pretty much give up on B&W over the past few years. When I do think an image needs this treatment I still shoot color negative and transform to monochrome in Photoshop.

I disguise the color balance by "toning" the image. I haven't used the darkroom for a few years.

rich815

10-28-2007, 15:10

I think both ways are best.

Tuolumne

10-28-2007, 15:45

There's nothinhg like the magic of a digital print. Give me a good scanner and a good printer any day. My current favorite is the Epson R1800. I would never have said such things before I got that one.

/T

Keith

10-28-2007, 16:05

rich815

10-28-2007, 16:09

I would like to do some black and white wet printing but the reality of a darkroom may never eventuate. I am however a heartbeat away from buying an Epson R2400 printer which I have heard is THE printer for black and white and it does up to A3.

Get the 3800. Once the ink that's included with the 3800 is factored in it's actually a cheaper printer after about a year. Newer technology and can print bigger too (only downside is no bulk paper feeder though).

A properly done B&W print with either of those on Crane Museo Silver Rag paper will make even the most die-hard darkroom fan take pause...

rogue_designer

10-28-2007, 16:21

prefer might be the wrong word. Different mediums, it depends on what I want.

Currently mostly scan and print, out of convenience - but for some images, that just won't be the look I'm after. For those I rent or borrow a darkroom. (Still havn't convinced my GF about the feasibility of a temporary movable one in our only bathroom. :D )

NickTrop

10-28-2007, 16:50

I prefer darkroom prints - but lately, I must confess, I've been getting good results with an inexpensive set-up:

HP 8450 inkjet printer (which has a gray cart specifically for black and white photo printing)
Epson 3170 (eyeing up that V500)
Vuescan
Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl
Adobe Lightroom
Photoshop (only sometimes to remove the occasional scratch...)

I usually shoot MF black and white 100 speed, develop the negatives in Rodinal, scan at highest res, 2 passes, and make 8inch x 8inch prints from 6cmX6cm negatives. I print with medium sharpness setting. It's fast, more convenient and though to my eye wet prints look better, I've - disheartiningly, been more positive comments from my injet prints : (

One thing that's a big plus of inkjet over wet prints is prefect exposures without guesswork or "settling" for "good enough" exposure-wise after several messed up attempts.

Ultimately, my take is if you "nail" a wet print, yeah it's better than an inkjet print.

But, scan/inkjet drives the considerable "trial and error" element out of the process and gives a great deal more control. The "max" of quality isn't equal to a wet print, but your results will be more consistent and the "quality of your quantity" will improve overall (if that makes sense). You'll get better and more consistent results overall over a volume of prints relative to wet process (caveat - wet process at my current skill-level and set-up) but the max quality of a print - one that you "nail" in wet process is slightly inferior with digital.

It pains me to admit this.

My take - TMMV.
|

pellothed1

10-28-2007, 16:58

Before deciding which would work best for me, outsourcing everything, printing my personal photography myself, and choosing between ink and wet printing, I did a comparison between the available inkjets at the time and narrowed it down to the Epson 4800 and Canon IPF 5000. After having quite a few prints of my own work made on both printers, on different media types, I chose the Canon over the Epson and over my prints I'd made in a traditional darkroom from the same negs. I'd say I'm pretty experienced in all types of digital printing, and this Canon is amazing for black and white, the best I've seen. They also recently replaced the 5000 with the 5100 due to a black/grey ink reformulation that is supposed to have improved it even further. Unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to see any of my work printed on one.

Keith

10-28-2007, 23:31

Surprise surprise ... nearly two to one for digital printing. All the darkroom curmudgeons must be occupied elsewhere today! :D

moonwrack

10-29-2007, 00:23

Just use both methods as appropriate. Remember, however, that a hand-made, silver-based print produced in a conventional darkroom is unique and personal to the photographer in a way that can never be achieved with digital. Ideal as prints for framing or as gifts to friends.

Solinar

10-29-2007, 03:23

Surprise surprise ... nearly two to one for digital printing. All the darkroom curmudgeons must be occupied elsewhere today! :D

Not really a surprise considering the logistics of setting up a darkroom.

However, once it is set up, you'll be good to go for decades. By this I mean, the technology doesn't change much. There are no worries about updating software, ink cartridges being superseded by newer designs or your printer head becoming clogged.

My darkroom set up is on home-built carts, which serve as tables and allow for storage underneath. I have two compact Durst enlargers and use Nova slot processors for development. It all rolls out of the way into the back of my walk-in closet space when not in use.

I'm lucky enough to have a walk-in closet that adjoins a bathroom with no windows.

Back to the logistics - no matter how large that you think your desk top scanner and printer are - electronic printing still requires less space. There is less fuss about temperature and you have the option of push button repeatability.

Still, it is nice to be able to print directly through the negative in one operation, especially with medium format negs.

With an enlarger - the final print is your scan. I can crank out a print to the rinse tank every three minutes. If I use FB paper - the rinse process becomes a bottle neck. With RC paper - the rinse process is about 4 minutes.

feenej

10-29-2007, 04:00

I prefer darkroom prints, but if my photo needs to be retouched, or is difficult to print in the darkroom for some reason, it's easier to print electronically.

robert blu

10-30-2007, 03:04

my rcp:
xp2 or provia 100 F
nikon scan 5000 ed
hp 9180 B
hartman baryt matt paper (when quality is a must) or other (when cost has priority)
results very satisying. learning curve is necessary, as it was in the darkroom.
onlt note that in case of B&W is not possible to make glossy print (at least I'm not able yet...) in this case I suggest to follow Pherdinand suggestion: Kodak Endura paper is amazing...
rob

Rayt

10-30-2007, 03:55

I prefer a real darkroom but now must make do with an Epson R2400. I am actually very happy with the outcome. The only weakness is my lack of Photoshop skills.

srtiwari

10-30-2007, 04:05

Gave up a wet darkroom years ago, and now use a Nikon 9000 and a HP printer. Just got a R2400 on a 'deal' thru Epson, but haven't used it yet.
Keith, I would be interested in the source for bulk inks that might save some money. And BTW, I love the IIIF.

Uwe_Nds

10-30-2007, 04:08

like2fiddle

10-30-2007, 04:19

Darkroom for me. I already spend enough time in front of screens. It's not that I don't do anything digital, all my color photography is scanned to CD where I have it processed.

nikon_sam

10-30-2007, 13:30

We have a Epson Printer somewhere in the house but I have never used it...
I prefer working in a Darkroom...

Dogman

10-30-2007, 13:50

I tried scanning and printing. It's easy. It's expensive. It's boring.

I'm not a great printer and I'm not particularly fond of the chemical darkroom. It's work. But like most work, it is more rewarding in the end than having some machine or another person do the task for you.

Giving someone a nice silver-based black and white print that you spent some time making yourself is also rewarding to both the recipient and the presenter.

srtiwari

10-30-2007, 13:51

Uwe, I was referring to Keith (message #12) and his remark about bulk inks. I had also, recently bought a Leica IIIf from him. In any case, thanks for the link.
All the best,
Subhash

rich815

10-30-2007, 13:54

We have a Epson Printer somewhere in the house but I have never used it...
I prefer working in a Darkroom...

So you prefer working in the darkroom to something you have not tried? Make perfect sense! :-)

jvr

10-30-2007, 14:01

Used to do darkroom, now scan+print. LS4000ED for 35mm, Epson V700 for MF. Epson R2400 printer. Very good results in B&W. But inks go fast... :(

rlightfoot

10-30-2007, 14:04

I think both have their merits. I've gone with darkroom for my vote, because I love the atmosphere and the magical feel of working in the darkroom...
It's like some kind of great secret is being coaxed from the dark. Even if your actual photos are rubbish!

I like working with computers as well, though... and modern printers are seriously impressive.

sepiareverb

10-31-2007, 13:20

Why sit on yer a$$ for photography when you can bop around in the darkroom?

imhere

10-31-2007, 13:31

I used to be darkroom but now use Nikon 5000 and Epson R2400

sfb_dot_com

11-01-2007, 07:01

Develop B&W myself, transparency film to a lab, then scan with Epson V750 & print occasionally on R800. Bigger prints I used to take to my local Jessops, but now I live in Cornwall I'm going to have to use an online service, 'cos there aint no such thing round here 'mi lover' as they say. I use the Quadtone RIP for B&W which gives good results. There is just as much art and craft in creating a good scan, and digital print, just no smell of fixer. Leave an open bottle next to the 'puter and turn the lights off for that authentic Darkroom Experience.

Regards Andy
p.s http://homepage.mac.com/sfb_dot_com/Kernow/page17/page3/page3.html for some example.

nightfly

11-02-2007, 07:31

I printed for years in a traditional darkroom. The "magic moment" of the print coming up is a thrill. As are the heady mix of chemicals, darkness and red light. The hours fly by (unfortunatley when you rent space, the meter is running). Sitting in front of a computer messing around with photoshop is much less mystical.

I started printing on the computer out of necessity as all the darkroom spaces I used in New York closed and I got lazy. I went with the easiest black and white printing solution I could find, black only ink in an Epson 1280. And the results are really good. The tonal range is impressive. No color shifts. If you like cold toned prints, I haven't seen much to rival it.

But I got the jones to go back into the darkroom recently and realized quite quickly, "what a pain in the *ss". Really to get something right requires test exposures and multiple prints and yadda yadda and it all feels so wasteful and time consuming. A trash can full of photo paper and strips and all the chemicals.

I really like shooting, I even like developing. But printing? The less time to get to my vision the better. Scan, a quick layer of levels, another one of curves, print, done. I can see pretty much what I'm getting on screen. Sure sometimes the heads are clogged or there are some strange streaks or whatever or something on the scanner, but all in all, digital has one me over. This is just on Epson archival matte, I've got some of the new papers sitting around waiting to get tested and I bet they'll be even better.

Maybe I'll put a red light next to my computer and open up some fixer for ambiance.

Vics

11-02-2007, 12:20

I used to think I hated printing, then I got a Leica M3. Now I love printing and have even gone back to fiber papers! Go figure.
Vic

rich815

11-02-2007, 12:40

I have access to the best digital equipment you can imagine, but I still do my prints in the darkroom. The reason is it is a tried and true method. I do not have any concerns about the longevity of the prints. Digital prints do have their place. I scan and print images to save time and to see if the image is worth printing on silver. The funny thing about all of this is I used to think that printing in the darkroom was expensive. Now it is the cheapest way to get your work on paper. It costs less for a sheet of silver coated paper than one of similar quality for your inkjet printer. Interesting, huh?

Patrick

What printer and paper do you use for your digital prints Patrick?

amateriat

11-02-2007, 13:21

Well, I love both, hence my declining to vote. But I haven't the facilities for my own darkroom, even a temporary, bare-bones setup. Galfriend is a tad sensitive to chemicals, so it's enough of a challenge to simply soup my own film (but at least that's happening). I started messing with scanners and printers as far back as 1999 (starting with a used Nikon LS-10 film scanner and new Epson Stylus Pro 1200), and got up to speed fairly quickly. Current setup is a Minolta 5400 film scanner (first version), UMAX PowerLook 2100XL tabloid-size scanner with tranny adapter (for assorted scanning work, including digital contact sheets), and HP Photosmart Pro 8750, which is the very first A3-format printer I've found that prints b/w, as well as color, without the usual artifacts (bronzing, gloss-differential, etc.), even on glossy/semi-gloss paper. (Yes, I've checked out the Epsons; real, real good, but not quite to my taste.)

Both methods of printing are valid, and, IMO, will remain so. But sometimes we don't have the luxury of choice in the matter, which is why I embraced the digital darkroom with open arms from the get-go, even though I still have major issues with most digital cameras (love my new little Casio, though), and as a result shoot roughly 90% of my work on film.

(Which reminds me: one lovely thing about film is in the options it gives you: conventional darkroom printing, digital scanning/printing in your own home/studio, scanning and outsourcing to a commercial lab for printing on conventional, fiber-based silver paper, or inkjet paper in larger sizes than you might be able to print at home. Yes, you can take something you shot with a digital camera and have a physical film copy made, but that's a bit like carrying coals to Newcastle–or, on this side of the pond, Appalachia–isn't it?) ;)

- Barrett

Sisyphus

11-03-2007, 19:36

I prefer the darkroom. I am able to disconnect from society--internet, TV, telephone, bills, etc --for a few hours, and have chance to just think about photogaphy and my work.

amateriat

11-03-2007, 20:13

I prefer the darkroom. I am able to disconnect from society--internet, TV, telephone, bills, etc --for a few hours, and have chance to just think about photogaphy and my work. Believe me, I grok your point more than you might imagine.

At the moment, I can't avail myself of my before-mentioned digital darkroom, because...well, it's a long story, but the bottom line is that it's not the "inner sanctum" that a dedicated wet darkroom generally is. An old-school darkroom is a place where you can pretty much leave the rest of your life behind you, if only for a handful of hours, and essentially hyperfocus on The Work, perhaps with a bit of musical accompiniment, but nothing else. Makes you wonder if we had stolen a move on the TM movement of the 70s! :rolleyes:

And this points up one of the problems with digital: in my case, every damn thing is "connected." Scanners, printers, AND the Internets when I need some damn driver update for whatever reason. The wet darkroom brooks no such distractions. All it asks for is light-tightness and (on the wet side, anyway) running water. My tiny digital "atelier" has only 3-1/2 walls, and since I no longer live alone, I have to fight for every hour of concentration. Digital is about interconnectedness, but the creative spirit (for lack of a handier term) often wants to cut the cord with damn near everyone for at least a short span of time to work and sort stuff out, from between the ears to the paper, whatever the path from the former to the latter. Nevertheless, I'm working on the problem as I write this. 'Twas ever thus, don't you think?

- Barrett

ErnestoJL

11-04-2007, 10:10

The old fashioned wet darkroom makes me feel better than anything else.
There is a reason behind it: I can be out of everything else and I am the only one to blame if something goes wrong. No f****** soft or hard problems, nor ink or cable connections problems. Just myself.
So, I think it´s the only decent way to make fine prints. Other are just digital (say automated or whatever) prints.
No signature in them (IMHO)!

Ernesto

pauledell

11-05-2007, 06:38

robert blu

11-05-2007, 09:14

I have a "family" reason to prefer the digital camera chiara. I'm travelling a a few days a week because of my work, and it would be not nice to my wife if when I come back home I close myself in a dark room. Our flat is an openspace, she can watch television, or read a book, I'm sitting in front of a monitor not so far and we can speak each other, commenting or what is on the tv screen or on the monitor. It works, at least for us.
rob
PS we are not so long married!

Sisyphus

11-06-2007, 15:26

That is one more reason to have a wet or traditional darkroom; to get away from the wife, and the mother in law . . . I need a break from them as well sometimes.

MRohlfing

11-14-2007, 07:53

Darkroom for B&W
Scanner for Color

So I voted for both options (checked both boxes)! There was no error message. I wonder, how this vote was counted? :eek:

Michael

Ronald M

11-14-2007, 11:19

So far i tossed a Lexmark and an Epson with about 3 prints off each.

i am working with a Kodak dye-sub 1400 that is a gem so far. Turn it on and it works. Period.

I still prefer my darkroom equipped with the best money can buy.

gregg

11-16-2007, 05:30

Well - my 35mm/mf work has moved to mostly online presentation or transmission for publication. Editors REALLY don't want prints anymore. However, they usually comment on B&W shots something like, "wow, you did that with film..."

Prints on rag paper from the Epson 2200 are great and I can always send out for a "real" print.

That said, my darkroom is still set up for film development and contact printing from 8x10 negatives. The enlarger is gone but the bare bulb and timer are there - very primitive but all that is needed for that medium.

RayPA

11-16-2007, 06:18

I really like printing digital. I just ordered new inks for my 2200 and I'm eyeing the R2400 (with its current $100 rebate). I work on a computer all_day_long, and I have no problem coming home and working on scanning, editing, and printing images on a computer. I like also like digital printing because I can make prints without hiding away in a darkroom. I don't need or want to "get away" from my family. In fact hermit-ing away usually gets me in MORE trouble.

I like the consistency of "edit once, print many." Photoshop is fantastic, my favorite application. What I really miss from the darkroom are contact sheets.

,

Chriscrawfordphoto

12-19-2007, 12:42

I have both darkroom and digital scanning and printer. I believe the traditional darkroom can produce the best B&W prints ( I never print color). however, I have become sensitized to the chemicals , causing breathing problems. While I development film, I have been scanning the negatives and slides and printing on an Epson 2400. I have had excellent results with either method.

Paul

Paul,

I had the same problems working with chemicals, so I bought a Nikon LS-8000ED scanner about six yrs ago and started scanning and using photoshop as my darkroom. It was neat to see that you're in New Haven, Indiana. I'm right next door in Fort Wayne! I don't think i've seen anyone else here from the area.

literiter

12-26-2007, 18:49

amateriat

12-26-2007, 19:07

literiter:

For one thing, I'd forget Option #4; that way lies madness. ;)

It really comes down to What Works Best. If you can see yourself sweating it a bit, get the darkroom set up, but only if you think you can set it up to work to a standard you'll be happy with, otherwise you'll find yourself emerging from the darkness, squinty-eyed, and muttering to yourself, "Damn...if only I started with a poured-concrete floor...". (A mediocre darkroon will do you no favors.)

In which case, you're best off grabbing as good a film scanner as you can afford off the 'Bay or elsewhere, and working your level best with it. And, while not exactly dirt-cheap, it will yield good and consistent results, if you pay attention.

Chriscrawfordphoto

12-26-2007, 20:11

I didn't vote, because I'm in the middle of this quandry. Do I go darkroom or digital scan and print?
At this time I only use film.
I've been sending my work out, all of it, Black and White and color. The color is acceptable but the Black and White, in a word: sucks. The commercial systems used are not good.
So I must do it myself at some point or forget it.

The options are of course:
-Scan, photoshop and print. Would give me Black and White and color $$$$
-Black and White darkroom and forget color. $ (have all the stuff, must set up)
-Go all digital and really spend $$$$$!
-Be a mall potato and read the newspaper all day. Very reasonable

I used to have a full black and white darkroom. I rarely shot color. I started getting allergies to the chemicals. And photo labs suck...I have never seen one anywhere that did good black and white at a price mortals can afford. I bought a Nikon LS-8000ED film scanner. This does 35mm and 120 film, because I shoot both film formats. It was expensive, $3000 6 years ago. But it was worth every cent. Virtually every photo you see on my website was shot on film and scanned on that scanner. That's a lot less money than I'd have spent paying a lab for prints of the more than 3000 photos i have scanned in that time. And that scanner's replacement model is only $2000 now. If you only shoot 35mm a Nikon scanner is only $600 new.

I later bought a Nikon D70 digital SLR to try out digital. I used it for commercial work since my clients always want files, not prints. Scanning film for commercial work is too time consuming to be profitable. A 6mp camera like the D70 is cheaper than a 35mm scanner today, but it produces less resolution than you'll get from 35mm film and this is especially apparent in black and white work where the resolution is definately inferior to film. Color actually isn't bad with it, and if you can afford a camera like the D80 (10mp) I think you'll actually prefer digital for color unless you're used to shooting 120 size color film.

I also have a Kodak 14n, 14mp. It is almost medium format quality for color and is actually quite good for black and white, but a digital SLR with that kind of resolution is a lot more costly than a film scanner.

Chris101

12-26-2007, 22:10

Hi,

I prefer the good old fashioned darkroom, and I use one whenever I can (I work at a school and use the darkroom there whenever I can.) But I have spent the last three months or so scanning with a Nikon 5000 scanner, editing on an Intel Mac and printing on an Epson 7800 printer with it's special black & white inkset. I still enjoy the craft and feeling of the darkroon, but I can get results with the digital setup much more efficiently.

If I had to do this for a living, it would be a no-brainer. Since I don't, there are the best of both worlds available to me.

wallace

12-27-2007, 02:49

The main reason for me to end up the darkroom was the bad feeling I had for
wasting really big amounts of precious drinking water! (I only made baryt prints)
I still use film and do my own developement of 35mm and 120 rolls, but then
scan and print (B/w carbon ink) on fine paper. Wish I could have done this 30 years ago!

ray*j*gun

12-27-2007, 07:41

This is about fun for me. As such, I have a wonderful B&W darkroom built in my basement. It used to be color also but that was not really fun with drum proicessing etc. I send color out and its not too bad but I shoot mostly B&W and print in the darkroom. Its how I have fun and thats subjective!! There is only a right answer if you have to make a living at it!

Roger Hicks

02-15-2008, 10:23

The analogy that springs to mind for me is 'instant freeze-dried rehydrated, or freshly cooked with top-quality ingredients?' (I have also written cookbooks...)

Yes, I have both. Yes, I scan negs for publication. But if I want the best possible print for publication: print in the darkroom and scan that. My wife, who is a far better printer than I, feels even more strongly about it.

When we bought our current house in 2003, the first room we sorted was the darkroom.

Cheers,

R.

BigSteveG

02-15-2008, 10:41

I've built my own darkroom this year and love it. I will still scan negs. Will probably buy the new Artix scanner late this year or sometime next. And continue to use a pro-lab for color/slide work.I love the process of making a print as well as the learning invloved. I also want to learn some of the alternative processes a some point. It's very relaxing to put on some music, turn all the lights off and play with light in my own private space.

biomed

02-15-2008, 11:38

Nikon Coolscan andEpson inkjet - I haven't been in a darkroom for many years. The digital darkroom is a major convenience because (1) I no longer own any darkroom equipment, (2) I have no space for a darkroom and (3) I can leave the scanning/printing at any time without any clean up - trays, chemicals, etc. But, I do miss it!

Mike

__hh

06-06-2008, 15:44

The IDEA of wet printing appeals to me and I know that part of the magic of photography is seeing the image appearing during the printing process. However, I am just at a stage where I am only starting to develop my B&W negs..... I'll just let myself get over that 'hurdle' first.

Logistics at the moment does not seem to allow me to print.... seems like way too much chemicals, fiddly bits, and taking up too much space. I simply cannot dedicate a place in the house for this.

swoop

06-23-2008, 09:02

I've been scanning and printing for a year now. But I'm currently in the process of building my own home darkroom to get back to working with real prints.

Rhoyle

06-23-2008, 10:54

I do inkjet-not because I think it's better, but because it's what I have. I think the darkroom still gives better results in b+w.

pipal

06-23-2008, 12:09

darkroom for me, although I use the scanner as a contactprint proofs for choosing the photos for enlargement. The possibility to buid myself a very tiny darkroom (cca 1.1 x 1.2 meter) more than two years ago led me in fact to full analog photography (not counting the scans) and I sold my D70 dslr then. I have never looked back and am happy. I also work with comupers all day and classic darkroom is a resting place for me.

jwhitley

06-23-2008, 15:22

I have to work with computers for my job - I don't want to do so in my hobby.

Often, this sentiment resonates with me strongly... except when it comes to print work. I find settling down into the "digital darkroom" to be rather relaxing. My printing to-date has been on the Epson 3800's in the PCNW digital lab -- gorgeous printers for both B&W and color work. I've also worked a bit with hybrid printing: making digital negatives on transparency film for contact printing (palladium).

My first foray into wet darkroom work starts tonight. It'll be very interesting to compare the feel of the two ways of working...

hiorgos

06-23-2008, 16:12

No chance to develop and print at home, no space for that. So I shoot 35mm and send it to a good lab, which could have been included in the poll as an option. If you don't shoot lots of film every week it can be a handy choice, apart for the hassle of going to the lab.

About the costs, what would be less expensive, for a 35mm roll a week, in the mid-term? (including the setting up price)
-darkroom
-scan and print
-photo lab

JeffGreene

06-24-2008, 01:46

I would like to do some black and white wet printing but the reality of a darkroom may never eventuate. I am however a heartbeat away from buying an Epson R2400 printer which I have heard is THE printer for black and white and it does up to A3. Ink costs worry me though and a few mistakes during the learning process and getting to know the printer's capabilities ... could be costly!

There is a bulk ink system available for this printer that saves a lot of money apparently and actually cuts printing costs by 75%. It also uses the dye based chromatic inks that have become important if you want prints to last long term.

It would be interesting to see a cost comparison of the two methods over the long term. :confused:

Keith:
I was considering the same route you are until I came across an article by David Brooks a few months ago in the 'Bug. The link he referenced is below. The Epson R1800 since the R1900 came out is quite cost-effective. These are archival inks and produce gorgeous prints. You do have to tinker a bit, but it is well worth it!

http://www.inksupply.com/R1800_bo.cfm

Let me know what you think. :D

jaap

06-24-2008, 03:21

Darkroom the results with a tmax 400 even with 35mm is beyond compare with computer printers. At least if you have the darkroom skills. By the way a darkroom is much more fun.

Ronald M

06-24-2008, 03:35

I reopened my darkroom after a year of digital. They both have their place. I just wish I could get a Nikon lens to image on film like the Leica lenses. They will not and I would rather not carry two systems.

Scanning my new 100 foot roll of plus x seems to be more of a challenge than Delta 100 or tri x was as the highlights blow easily . I need to work on it some.

However the prints are simply stunning, fine grained, sharp, nice tonal range.

Solinar

06-24-2008, 04:02

The total cost of my darkroom gear was about $300 back in 2002. Since then I've added a second Nova 3-slot B/W 8x10 processor and an 11 by 14 Nova 4-slot processor - which needed a crack repaired. The two enlargers reside on or in a roll away cabinet and the slot processors reside on a cart for a microwave oven. The capital costs are fixed, there are no needed hardware or software improvements.

If I only did 35mm a transition to the electronic / digital darkroom would be easier, but alas half the time, I prefer medium format photography, especially 6x9.

The cost to transition is a bit prohibitive for me at the moment, seeing as I'd like to own a Nikon Coolscan 9000 scanner, high end desktop computer, printer in the Epson 2880 range and update my present software.

The trouble with my traditional B/W darkroom set up is that it still works, does not eat much cash flow and rolls into the back portion of my walk-in closet when not in use. The digital B/W work flow beckons, but for now I'm content with color prints from my two digital cameras printed on two archaic dye-sub printer which were bought second-hand.

cosmonot

09-09-2008, 17:57

I prefer darkroom work, but don't really have the time to set one up right now.

In the last year I cleaned out two darkrooms, one at work that set me up to handle up to 4x5 and one that belonged to a deceased friend that's good for 6x6 and smaller. I've got this stored away, probably going to get moved to wherever I end up next year, and stored away there.

I've got this gear but I'm still debating a new V700 scanner so I can archive a bunch of 4x5 negatives I inherited. If I was smart I'd just sell it all and go digital.

sepiareverb

09-10-2008, 15:59

Oh I wish I'd built my darkroom twice as big...

nextreme

09-10-2008, 16:11

I'm re-planning my darkroom now, as it's in an unfinished room in my basement.
The plan is for a permanent, completely finished room/installation with storage, ventilation, the works !
I can currently print up to 11x14, but I'm on the lookout for 16 x 20 trays.

marke

09-18-2008, 17:03

Wow, the poll is almost 50/50, with the darkroom taking a slight lead!

I just started a B&W course at the local university, just to refresh my memory of not having souped my own for about 30 years now. Used to have a small darkroom in my parents second bathroom baclk then. But my wife and I just bought a house last winter, and I'm getting the urge to build my own darkroom in the basement this winter.

pesphoto

09-18-2008, 17:05

Tonight I went to Home Depot and bought about $25 worth of PVC piping and got my sink's drain pump hooked up to the house's main sewer line. Couldnt believe how simple it was to do.

Al Kaplan

09-29-2008, 14:01

I bought most all of my darkroom equipment between 1961 and 1968. It's paid for. I can look at a negative and have a pretty good idea of exposure and which variable contrast filter(s) to use, the projcted image on the baseboard tells me where to dodge, where to burn in and whether this area should be through another filter. There ain't no way that anybody is gonna convince me that I should relearn everthing that I know "because this is the twenty-first century and digital is the wave of the future"! Another consideration is that collectors and gallery owners place a much higher value on silver gelatin prints on fiber based paper.

david rowland

09-29-2008, 14:23

I think that the best results still are from the darkroom for tones and richness but obviously if you need to edit in photoshop you have to scan. I have a coolscan LS50 but i find that you end up with a lot of grain in comparison to a wet print. If you need photoshop then maybe wet print and then copy or scan the print to give the best quality I have done this on occasions and have been very happy with the results.

gns

09-29-2008, 15:09

Different media have different looks and that certainly goes for ink jet. People will naturally have preferences for their own work, but if you still think ink jet is inferior, you probably haven't gotten around much. Check out the work of Gregory Conniff or Joel Leivick for instance. I just saw a show of Leivick's work last week in San Francisco, and his large B&W ink jet prints are really beautiful.

Cheers,
Gary

Joe

10-18-2008, 16:10

I print in a darkroom now but I'm excited about making some ink jet prints too, specifically as a way to make a book.

pesphoto

10-18-2008, 17:13

I just came outta the darkroom tonight. It was my first real printing session in about 2 years. We've moved into a house and Im building a darkroom. It was a very nice evening to say the least. I felt quite clumsy and out of sync being that it was so long since I had printed. But it was a new beginning for me.

Al Kaplan

10-18-2008, 19:35

We've already rehashed this here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48125
in a thread started by Bill Pierce called "Wet or Dry".

Here's what I wrote:

Al Kaplan01-18-2008, 15:38
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!"

Yammerman

10-21-2008, 03:18

For me thereis no comparison one is exciting the other a bit dull. With a the darkroom I feel I'm in the same game as the old masters. I hone my craft and and for a relatively small outlay I have chance of competing. With digital it's always the next gizmo and it comes at a cost. The pros can afford the expense of huge inkjet prints which I don't think I can. Last night I printed from my 6x7 negatives on 12x16 and got a print with the tonality I crave. I understand I have much to master but I feel it's only me preventing progress not my ability to throw thousands at the latest camera, scanner or printer.

Also I love the red light the gurgle and holdng that print in my hand.

Tom A

10-21-2008, 15:46

Surprise surprise ... nearly two to one for digital printing. All the darkroom curmudgeons must be occupied elsewhere today! :D

They are in the darkroom, dipping their hands in interesting solutions!

Tom A

10-21-2008, 15:55

I am still wedded to the darkroom. The digital/inkjet perinting is a bit of a "terra incognito" to me, so for the time, its darkroom. I like the peace and quiet and the magic of watching a white piece of paper turn into an image.
It is also the one place were nobody (and I men NOBODY) can disturb you, no phone calls, no "You have mail" beeps and if someone knocks at the door - you just yell "Not now - paper in the developer" or words like that.
I am impressed with the quality of digital printing, though most bl/w printing is still below that of the Fiber Based paper, carefully printed and toned etc.
And truth be told, the music from the radio, the OC filtered light and water gurgling through washers etc will induce a zen like trance. No printer will do that.
One of these days I will try out digital printing - but so far it has not swayed me.
There is also a bit of satisfaction in holding up a perfect (when such a thing is achieved) 11x14 or 16x20 and go "I did it from start to finish and not a goddamn pixel involved".

Dave Wilkinson

10-23-2008, 04:53

Last week I ran into an old aquaintance that I had not seen for many years, In his hall were some framed prints of his kids, I took them about twenty five years ago on a Rollieflex ( alas, long gone ) and on 'Record Rapid' - sellenium toned. Back at home I looked long and hard at my recent inkjets, no contest!!, now the Durst and EL Nikkors that have stood idle for about four years, are going to have a new lease of life!.....even if there is no more 'Record Rapid', 'Brovira' or 'Portriga'!......there must be a good alternative left! ?? :)

Cheers Dave.

Lilserenity

12-03-2008, 14:11

Just been in my 'darkroom' printing, and every time I'm reminded why I love it so much.

It's an incredibly enjoyable experience and after what I've printed this evening, I really do find scanner + printer to be a laborious task and one that still isn't always that pleasing. That said I have seen some amazing things from inkjets.

But for me, the darkroom and wet prints time and time again allow me to create the image that I perceived when shooting. With scanning it requires a fair amount of careful photoshop work as straight scans for me are often rather flat and lifeless.

Horses for courses!

Al Kaplan

12-03-2008, 15:03

I strongly suspect that there is another advantage to working in the traditional wet darkroom and getting your hands wet with chemicals, like fixer, that have disolved silver in them. Silver is a powerful antibiotic. Drops of silver nitrate are put in the eyes of newborn babies for that reason and colloidal silver is used both as a topical and injectable antibiotic.

When I was young I used to get boils, and cuts would almost always get infected. I got sick frequently. Sinus infections were common. I never made the connection until a few years ago when I learned about the antibiotic qualities of silver, but since I was about 18 and started to do darkroom work on a regular basis none of this has been a problem. It doesn't take much silver in your system to act as an antibiotic, and I suspect that I absorb enough through my skin from developing and printing.

Google "silver" and "antibiotic" and there is a lot of information on line about colloidal silver as an antibiotic, but silver in colloidal form just makes it eaier to use. Silver in a compound with something else can still have its effect, just as silver nitrate, a compound of silver, in a newborn's eyes manages to kill the germs.

Maybe there's money to be made in selling used hypo?

Chris101

12-03-2008, 15:37

Al Kaplan

12-03-2008, 15:42

Yes, it is toxic. Too much isn't healthy. Ask the bacteria. Then there's aspirin toxicity, but tons of it get ingested every day.

jaap

12-14-2008, 02:19

Yeah the reason photographers live longer is so few have a darkrooom anymore

Roger Vadim

12-14-2008, 15:23

being a true fetishist I'm deeply in love with fibre paper, the skin like quality really gets me going - and if it's wrinkly, it doesn't matter, do love that old lady!

Seriously spoken: I just made a large print (1.20 x .80 meter) from a 4x5 B/W neg, it was made by the best pro lab in town on semi-fibre paper using the odd inkjet. I have to say, it does lacks the subtleness and that certain magic of the 40 x 50 cm print I did in the wet darkroom.

It might be a phenomenological problem: do you prefer something (silver) being transformed by light, or do you like a rather complex digital process to simulate that effect?
The wet process does make, in a strange and logical way sense to what photography is (or to be precise - historicaly was). Some imprint of light on a rather valuable surface. My mayor problem at the moment is more (definately being attached to the wet process) if that might be a regressive fixation;)
-michael

danwilly

12-14-2008, 16:14

Using standard b/w negs you are better off with a wet process. Scanning them in doesn't give you much to work with digitally. However, if you shoot color film, scan it as a TIFF, and then convert to grayscale you get a whole wide range of elements to work with. I do both, but there is no technical advantage that I can see to scanning standard b/w film, especially if you have to work with JPEG's. I also like to make use of the wide range of papers now available at places like Adorama, such as endura and the silk finishes for digital prints. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. I would also confess that have entered a few art fairs, it was my darkroom prints that took the prize.

Nate Butler

12-15-2008, 12:03

I currently use a scanner and inkjet (Epson 4490 and R1800), but I haven't been at all satisfied with the results. The printer doesn't work well in Mac 0S 10.5, and Epson has no plans to update drivers-- so I scan on one computer, then run to the other end of my apartment where the printer is connected to my old Mac running 10.4. What a hassle.
I've considered purchasing a dedicated film scanner , but as we're planning to buy a house in late 2009, the idea of selling the printer and setting up a wet darkroom has crossed my mind. Trouble is, I've never used one before. ;)

taxi38

12-18-2008, 11:04

I far prefer the wet darkroom ,unfortunatly its an expensive luxury that at the moment is unaffordable.However by default Ive found that I can make a much better print by scanning into photoshop and fiddling until it looks right than ever appeared from the darkroom.If I was to transfer an approximation of the trials and myriad attempts into hard darkroom cash Id say Im saving between 20 and 50 pounds per image.Possibly one day Ill be better able to absorb those costs again but I wont go back to inferior print quality.I feel I can say that I was a pretty good printer,many years of experience,but the subtlety available in photoshop is I feel at the moment unique.

Henk

12-18-2008, 11:34

I also love the darkroom. I think for B&W it gives the most beautiful "looks".
I finally found a variocontrast module for my V35, so life becomes even more enjoyable in the dark.

I recently had some problems with an allergy, but changing from Ilflord multigrade dev to Ilford PQ universal solved the problem.

ully

12-18-2008, 11:38

Isn't both an option?

mh2000

12-18-2008, 12:24

also, mpix.com does silver prints from digital sources... I can go to 12x18 on my HP 8750 that are beautiful, but for larger, or when I want to be able to say they are "traditional silver printes" there is mpix... looks quite good too.

capitalK

12-18-2008, 12:32

Having recently started printing in a darkroom again I think it would be hard for me to go back. The magic of watching it develop in the tray is just the best feeling and, as has been said before, the knowledge that from start to finish I did everything without a computer is such an ego boost.

Now if only my wet darkroom had a clone tool and healing brush.

Morca007

12-18-2008, 12:50

Even though I grew up using photoshop and am far more comfortable (and competent) with it than an enlarger, I'd prefer to spend the afternoon in the darkroom than at my computer.

I'm much more liable to spend an hour or two or three in photoshop, tweaking everything exactly as I see fit, but I'm loath to make more than a few test strips, and two prints of a single image in the darkroom. I can dodge/burn quite well in photoshop, but almost never do. I'm helpless when it comes to dodging and burning a piece of paper, but I will if need be. I hate cropping, and aim to keep as much of the original negative as possible in photoshop, but I love seeing crisp borders on a print as it comes to life.

taxi38

12-19-2008, 04:42

Ive heard of a way to make a digital internegative by printing on to some sort of transparent film and then contact printing this to the size you want.Sounds interesting.

srichmond

12-19-2008, 06:43

I prefer real darkroom, but realistically, that's not an option for me, as I don't have the space. So, I scan my negs and work from there.

Al Kaplan

12-19-2008, 07:21

Shortly after I bought this house in 1967 I constructed a darkroom about 7 x 9 feet. One side has a counter that can hold two or three enlargers with storage underneath for paper, the other side has a large fiberglass over plywood sink that holds the film washer, print washer, and room for trays up to 16 x 20 inches with storage under it for trays and chemicals. Shelves filled with boxes of negatives and contact sheets are on a third wall. Against the fourth wass, between the sink and enlarger table, is a clothes washer which discharges into the sink. It's a handy surface for the paper cutter. And yes, there's an ashtray in there, and probably the odor of 40 years worth of pipe and cigarette smoke, but I'm convinced that the odor makes for finer grain in my negatives and gives the silver prints a depth and luminosity they would otherwise lack. The wood probably couldn't pass a drug test either. ;-)