Should I just get a high-end ink-jet printer already?

[J J Kapsberger]

I live in an apartment. I have an enlarger. A very good enlarger. I hope to have one day soon a functioning darkroom in either the washroom or the kitchen. Making use of those rooms will involve setting up and dismantling every printing session. Whenever I 'develop' images in PS, I routinely make use of the digital equivalent of techniques such as burning, dodging, split-tone processing, toning, retouching, etc. That is, when I develop an image, I get into it in a big way and I want to make high quality prints.

Should I struggle with setting up and dismantling my darkroom (rolling the enlarger in and out, setting up the trays, wiping spills off the linoleum, working with one sink, etc.), or should I get a high-end ink-jet printer? How much better still is traditional printing? Can an idiot like me become a master traditional printer with a makeshift set up in an apartment?

[Joe Brugger]

Friend of mine with a tiny place put all the darkroom stuff into one of those kitchen carts with a work surface on top and shelves beneath. It gets wheeled into the bathroom as needed and everything stays more or less in one place. The cart locks into place when printing.

As nice as inkjets can be, it isn't the same as wet printing.

[dazedgonebye]

I've seen some great work with inkjet printers. Most especially the type modified to use all inks for various shades of grey.
I know there's a consensus around here that there is no substitute for wet printing...I'm not so sure.
From what I read though, getting great results from an inkjet is a real skill to be learned...not that a wet darkroom is easy...it's just that you can't expect to go buy a nice printer and start sending files and get a result you will be happy with.
Find and talk with some people doing good inkets and look at the results. Only you can tell if you'll be able to satisfy yourself with inkjets.

[tbarker13]

I've been using an Epson R2400, which does a very nice job with B&W printing. I won't say its better than traditional printing, but it's good.
Unless I ever find myself again with a spare room (with plumbing), I doubt I'll ever have a traditional darkroom again.

[sepiareverb]

You are simply mad. I've had two darkrooms as you describe- with all the set-up breakdown woes. Granted, at that time ink-jet wasn't an option, but there is simply a depth and luminosity lacking in even the very best B&W ink-jet prints.

[vdonovan]

I work with computers for a living, so when it comes to photography the LAST thing I want is to be sitting at a screen fiddling with curves, adjustment layers, etc. I want a hands-on hobby, so I'm a wet printer. If I had a different profession where I wasn't sitting in front of a screen all day, I would probably use a digital printer.

I'm lucky, though. I have access to a first-class rental darkroom, the Rayko Photography Center in San Francisco. I call them up and let them know I'm coming. They set up the enlarger and the chemistry. I waltz in, do my printing, and waltz out. They clean up. I LOVE it.

[BillBingham2]

That's a hard one. Take a look into a printer that takes continuos feed ink, there are several options, but do your work. Otherwise, IMHO, you will be paying through the nose for cartridges and such.

I miss the magic of watching the print develop, but time is sucked so dry right now I am not sure which way is up. I like the suggestion of a complete cart. Perhaps not for exposing the paper (shake in your enemy in printing as much as in capturing the image) but making it easy to set up is way cool. Perhaps take the enlarger off the top and use the top for the developer tray?

There are some great quality prints from good printers but it combines good ink, good paper and good knowledge of your software. Just like learning your paper, developer and enlarger.

Dig into printers, paper and ink, then your software. See if anyone near you will let you test and play (very hard to find).

B2 (;->

[Rayt]

I've been using an Epson R2400, which does a very nice job with B&W printing. I won't say its better than traditional printing, but it's good.
Unless I ever find myself again with a spare room (with plumbing), I doubt I'll ever have a traditional darkroom again.

Same here. I bought the R2400 for b/w and it is easy to use and the output is great. I have about 10 years of experience in the wet room and perhaps my computer skills are not up to it but traditional prints have better tonality. Inkjet prints are just different.

[Rayt]

I work with computers for a living, so when it comes to photography the LAST thing I want is to be sitting at a screen fiddling with curves, adjustment layers, etc. I want a hands-on hobby, so I'm a wet printer. If I had a different profession where I wasn't sitting in front of a screen all day, I would probably use a digital printer.

I'm lucky, though. I have access to a first-class rental darkroom, the Rayko Photography Center in San Francisco. I call them up and let them know I'm coming. They set up the enlarger and the chemistry. I waltz in, do my printing, and waltz out. They clean up. I LOVE it.

I was a regular at the Harvey Milk photo center and the people and the service are great. I am sure their enlargers are not first rate but good enough.

[35mmdelux]

many of today's great photogs have gone to high-end ink jet printing. Can you master it in you apartment? Absolutely, yes. Is it better than traditional printing. Not really.

Ink jet printing is quick and easy. If there is something you especially like or want to last over many years, then use traditional printing methods.

[tbarker13]

If you do decide to look at higher end printers, check out quadtone RIP, (http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRdownload.html) a shareware program that costs $50. I've been using it for B&W printing on my 2400 and it works quite well.
I'd love to go with an all black inkset, but because of a recent push by Epson, ink makers are more limited in which pre-filled cartridges they can sell. The all-black inksets I've found only come in Continuous Ink Systems or bottles (and I don't have the refillable carts) I don't think I print enough to go with a CIS - I've read a lot about maintenance issues if you don't keep them pretty active.
I just put in an order for some UT3D inks, which I've heard good things about. As an added bonus, the cartridges are $9 cheaper than Epson K3 inks.

[Tuolumne]

Unless you are an artist, serious exhibitor, or total perfectionist, you will never notice the difference after switching to a high-end ink jet. Actually - you will notice a difference - the ink jet makes far better prints than a dark room ever could for the average user. I have an Epson R-1800. I can do infinitely more with it than I ever could in a wet dark room. The flexibility and ease of use with a digital dark room so far out paces what the average wet dark room printer can do as to make the latter truly obsolete.

/T

[sepiareverb]

The flexibility and ease of use with a digital dark room so far out paces what the average wet dark room printer can do as to make the latter truly obsolete.

/T

Thanks for clearing this up for all of us who print silver. :bang:

They are different. From the hands of someone who cares enough to learn to print well the silver print is a remarkably beautiful object, with a depth and luminosity that a B&W ink-jet print can't touch. For the average user, who can't tell the difference between a silver print and an ink-jet why worry. Color is a different story, for since the demise of fiber based color paper there ink-jet certainly has an advantage, in longevity and with careful work, beauty.

The other side is the joy of printing, something many find completely lacking in the digital darkroom. But I guess pleasure doesn't enter into things so cut and dry :D

[mfogiel]

I think, only you can decide what is your satisfactory output. I'd say, take a good, sharp, tonally good negative, scan it and make all the adjustments, then go to a pro lab or look for a friend who can print it for you on an Epson 2400, 3800 or better on Ilford Gallerie Gold Fiber Silk paper in advanced B&W mode, or through a RIP.
Specify the toning too. Then make a print of the same negative at the same size in your darkroom and compare the outcome.
If you'll send me a jpeg, I can make the inkjet print for you, make sure the resolution is at least 360ppi for the size you want.

For me, the wet print has a slight edge in better visual depth, but the inkjets are catching up, and they win already in Dmax and sharpness, I would no longer want to sit in a darkroom for a tiny improvement which could wither away in a few months.

[dazedgonebye]

Unless you are an artist, serious exhibitor, or total perfectionist, you will never notice the difference after switching to a high-end ink jet. Actually - you will notice a difference - the ink jet makes far better prints than a dark room ever could for the average user. I have an Epson R-1800. I can do infinitely more with it than I ever could in a wet dark room. The flexibility and ease of use with a digital dark room so far out paces what the average wet dark room printer can do as to make the latter truly obsolete.

/T


Wow...you're getting better results from your R1800 than I am from mine.
I think it might do for most color work, but I've never been happy with the black and white...never...not even one image.

[J J Kapsberger]

...you will notice a difference - the ink jet makes far better prints than a dark room ever could for the average user. I have an Epson R-1800. I can do infinitely more with it than I ever could in a wet dark room...

That's exactly the scenario I'd envisioned. Both paths begin with a learning curve. With the inconvenience of my set up, such as it would be, it might make sense to go digital, achieve 98% of what I could via the wet process (after throwing away lots of paper and wiping indicator stop bath of the floor and counter [and scouring away the purple stains]), and be as satisfied with those prints as I am with music CDs (even though apparently they're inferior to analogue recordings).

[sepiareverb]

...With the inconvenience of my set up, such as it would be, it might make sense to go digital...

I'd be happy to take that inconvenient enlarging lens off your hands :D

[amateriat]

I love the wet darkroom, and don't regard the inkjet as a de-facto replacement. However, I've never had the proper space for the proper sort of darkroom for making the kind of prints that stand out compared to almost any other process. Presently, I can't even do the kit-on-a-cart arrangement properly. A high-end inkjet printer, coupled with attention to technique (which, BTW, starts with the film scan itself, a subject worth a bunch of threads here on its own), can yield prints that need not be apologized for. Different from the best wet prints, certainly. But "inferior?" I'd say not.

For me, HP's 8750 (recently discontinued, I believe) has been the ticket for the past three years, giving me dead-neutral b/w prints as well as excellent color, with a lack of many of the artifacts too many people take for granted in certain inkjet prints, in particular gloss differential and bronzing on glossy- or satin-finish paper (still something of an issue with certain Epson printers with standard inks, and a few other HP printers as well). And the prints can be exhibited without fear...I'll be putting my money where my mouth is on this matter in a few months. :)


- Barrett

[J J Kapsberger]

...I would no longer want to sit in a darkroom for a tiny improvement which could wither away in a few months.

Exactly the scenario I'd like to avoid.

[Tuolumne]

Thanks for clearing this up for all of us who print silver. :bang:

They are different. From the hands of someone who cares enough to learn to print well the silver print is a remarkably beautiful object, with a depth and luminosity that a B&W ink-jet print can't touch. For the average user, who can't tell the difference between a silver print and an ink-jet why worry. Color is a different story, for since the demise of fiber based color paper there ink-jet certainly has an advantage, in longevity and with careful work, beauty.

The other side is the joy of printing, something many find completely lacking in the digital darkroom. But I guess pleasure doesn't enter into things so cut and dry :D

There is no great pleasure in wet printing for me. I tried it once for a year. Never did it again. After that year I only shot slides. Now I can print anything I want at home with far superior results, color or B&W. I don't print much B&W so I haven't really perfected that technique. I'm sure if I cared enough I could get just as good results in B&W as I now get in color on my home ink jet.

/T

[vdonovan]

I was a regular at the Harvey Milk photo center and the people and the service are great. I am sure their enlargers are not first rate but good enough.
Hi Ray, I've seen good work come out of the Harvey Milk center. I believe it's supposed to re-open this year.

[Tuolumne]

For me, HP's 8750 (recently discontinued, I believe) has been the ticket for the past three years, giving me dead-neutral b/w prints as well as excellent color, with a lack of many of the artifacts too many people take for granted in certain inkjet prints, in particular gloss differential and bronzing on glossy- or satin-finish paper...


- Barrett

The Epson R1800 solved these problems for me. If this is what you are seeing in your B&W ink jet prints, you definitely need to upgrade. The R1800 has not even a trace of these bugaboos.

/T

[tbarker13]

I'm getting good results from the 2400. But it will never replace (in terms of enjoyment) the experience of working with a wet darkroom, particularly with fiber papers.
Watching the image appear on the paper never ceased to be magical for me, even after more than 20 years of darkroom work. If I had the space, I would not hesitate to build a darkroom.
I know that I can print better in the darkroom than i can the desktop. But the results are close enough that I can't complain.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Can an idiot like me become a master traditional printer with a makeshift set up in an apartment?

No you cannot, and it's not because you are an idiot. :eek:

But setting up a really good darkroom at minimum requires that the enlarger be permanently placed, leveled and adjusted, very carefully. The enlarger needs to be in a totally vibration free area, no cars and trucks, or jumpy floors.

You can print in a dry or semi-dry darkroom, but truly archival printing requires clean (filtered) running water and temperature control, and proper storage of materials. And you need a proper air drying area.

You can print for fun however, and if someone gives you a show, you can have the prints for the show professionally made, that's what most of us who have shown do anyway.

Example... I, like many one the RFF think that my film scans are pretty good, but yesterday a friend showed me some drum scans her lab made for a new book she has, compared to high end Nikon scans she made. Her scans are beautiful, but the $100 each drum scans were !00% better, and they were flawlessly clean, no photoshop work required, and each came with a chemical match print.

Her book:
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Give-Way-Evil-Photographs/dp/157687432X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215447415&sr=8-1

[sepiareverb]

...Now I can print anything I want at home with far superior results, color or B&W...

If the prints work for you that's great. Just don't rule out the wet darkroom so quickly for the rest of us. I get far superior results in color or B&W from my wet darkroom.

As to the thrill of seeing the print come up in the developer tray I'm sure there is an equivalent for digital printing...

[JTK]

Inkjet with good scans will resolve more detail than anything from an enlarger...a 4000ppi scan will pull more from the negatives than will an enlarger.

Don't worry about "color managed workflow" if you're skilled in color wet darkrooms. If you're totally unskilled (eg can't tell 5C from 5B or 5G instantly), get skilled.

Darkrooms, even the most cramped, are more fun since they're less like whatever you do at work (assuming you sit at a swivel chair at work).

[shadowfox]

Getting a good inkjet print may be enough for most people, but IMHO, it's not as satisfying as crafting your own darkroom print. :)

I recently started printing in the darkroom, and I find it much easier to understand and predict (and enjoy) than fiddling with endless settings and profile files in Photoshop.

Now, having said that, I do think a good inkjet printer have its usage. The high-resolution is very useful for making big, clean, negatives to use for contact printing in the darkroom :D

[Tuolumne]

Sepiareverb,
I don't rule out glass negatives and dark tents set up in Yosemite Valley if that turns your crank. But for the OP who wants to set up a jury-rigged wet dark room in his bathroom? Why? If you relish that experience then go for it. And who cares if it can be leveled, absolutely vibration-free, etc. etc. It's the experience you want.

But if what you want to do is make reasonably good photos, wet dark rooms are as obsolete as, well, glass negatives developed in a dark tent in Yosemite Valley. I think the OP was looking for advice from a bit of a different perspective than that, but if not, I stand corrected.

/T

[J J Kapsberger]

I guess the thing to to is to take a representative sample of negatives (varying tonality, etc.), have good prints made by both methods, compare it all side-by-side and decide for myself whether the difference(s) is/are significant.

[Solinar]

A darkroom for RC printing in an apartment is doable. I have one. Here are my present requirements.

* A walk-in closet, preferably 4'by8'. Mine is adjacent to a windowless bathroom.
* A home-built cart for the enlarger. Mine has storage for 1 enlarger & a paper drawer.
* Nova slot processors whichs upon a different cart, with room for storage underneath.

The bad news is that I prefer not work in a closet even with the wimpy exhaust fan that I installed - which is light tight. The good news is the bathroom is adjacent to the walk-in closet and is a two room design with a longish counter next to the sink. I had to install my own faucet in the smallish sink. My lighting is a combination of red and orange LED lights. The orange safe-lites are from Jobo. The red with frosted panels in front are my own design and these are much brighter than the units from Jobo.

My darkroom when set up the way I like it blocks access to rear most room with a toilet and a shower stall. The carts allow me to move my enlarger out of the way or into the closet when not in use. I have two Nova set ups one for 8x10 and a second for 11x14. My print washer is a vertical tank as well. As a suggestion, do update your wall outlet to GFI - I had to install my own outlet, so the GFI upgrade was a no brainer.

[Solinar]

Sepiareverb,
And who cares if it can be leveled, absolutely vibration-free, etc. etc. It's the experience you want.
/T

My sentiments exactly with regards to the second sentence.

Most amateur enlargers do come mounted to a large board to which you mount your easels. Once the enlarger head is properly aligned - it should stay that way with careful handling.

[amateriat]

The Epson R1800 solved these problems for me. If this is what you are seeing in your B&W ink jet prints, you definitely need to upgrade. The R1800 has not even a trace of these bugaboos.

/T
The R1800 (and, presumably, the new R1900) uses a gloss optimizer in one ink channel to neutralize gloss differential and bronzing, and seems to do a great job. I've heard mixed stuff about matte prints from this printer, but since I haven't seen matte prints from the printer, I can't say. My 8750 works quite nicely on glossy, satin/luster and matte without artifacts, but satin at the moment is my favorite.


Example... I, like many one the RFF think that my film scans are pretty good, but yesterday a friend showed me some drum scans her lab made for a new book she has, compared to high end Nikon scans she made. Her scans are beautiful, but the $100 each drum scans were !00% better, and they were flawlessly clean, no photoshop work required, and each came with a chemical match print.
No doubt about it: drum scans rule. However, I've done some stunning stuff with my Minolta 5400, and a friend of mine has done knockout b/w prints, to 16x20 and beyond, using the same scanner (and an Epson 4800 printer, which I admit having a touch of size-envy about).

What's that line about "the great being the enemy of the good?" :)


- Barrett

[tbarker13]

As to the thrill of seeing the print come up in the developer tray I'm sure there is an equivalent for digital printing...

Hmmm. Don't think it's even close. At least not for me. Watching a piece of paper gradually emerge from the printer isn't the same thing.

[Tuolumne]

"The R1800 (and, presumably, the new R1900) uses a gloss optimizer in one ink channel to neutralize gloss differential and bronzing, and seems to do a great job. I've heard mixed stuff about matte prints from this printer, but since I haven't seen matte prints from the printer, I can't say. My 8750 works quite nicely on glossy, satin/luster and matte without artifacts, but satin at the moment is my favorite."

I don't know about matte prints, but watercolor paper comes out awesome on the R1800.

/T

[amateriat]

The other thing to consider here is how big you want to print. Shirt-pocket-sized darkrooms usually can mange printing up to 8x10", perhaps 11x14 with extra care (and a rigid floor to minimize vibration). Bigger than that, and you're talking a regular-sized room IMO. My printing setup can go to 13x19", and color as well as b/w (ask how many wet-darkroom practicioners here have a setup for color printing; I'll bet you'll see few hands being raised).


- Barertt

[Solinar]

(ask how many wet-darkroom practicioners here have a setup for color printing; I'll bet you'll see few hands being raised).
- Barertt

Barret I gave up on at home R4 color printing back in 2002 - B/W printing by comparison is much easier, less toxic and much less temperature sensitive.

He or she who prints a lot of 13x19 prints has much more wall space than I.

[J J Kapsberger]

I reckon I'll leave color for the lab. I'll do up an image in PS and have the lab print it for me. I want to print BW at home.

As for my set up, it'll have to involve my enlarger on a home-made cart, which will have to be very sturdily built. My enlarger's a Focomat IIc, which weighs about 88lbs.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I reckon I'll leave color for the lab. I'll do up an image in PS and have the lab print it for me. I want to print BW at home.

As for my set up, it'll have to involve my enlarger on a home-made cart, which will have to be very sturdily built. My enlarger's a Focomat IIc, which weighs about 88lbs.

The focomat is not like setting up something flimsy like an omega or bessler, it will stay adjusted, even if moved a bit.

[David Goldfarb]

When I was on a research fellowship in Poland in the late 1980s, I was amazed at the work people were doing in makeshift darkrooms in apartments that were too small for comfort even without a darkroom and in times of incredible shortages. Since then, I've never thought that I didn't have enough space for a darkroom, and I've managed to make the dark/bathroom more efficient as I've used it in two Manhattan apartments now. We're moving to a new place later this month with an extra bathroom, so I'll be able to have something a little more permanent, but the main issue is that if you want to make wet prints, you can do it, whatever your circumstances.

I also have an HP B9180, and it's a fine inkjet printer. I like some of the options it gives me for color--particularly choice of paper surfaces--but the best B&W inkjet prints I've seen just don't compare to fine silver prints. That doesn't mean that you'll necessarily make better prints in the darkroom than you will with a computer, but I think that darkroom prints are potentially better than the best you can do with an inkjet printer.

More important than the method you choose is that you go to galleries and museums and participate in print exchanges and spend a lot of time looking at fine original prints, not reproductions in books or on the internet, so that you know what the possibilities are and what can be achieved, if you work at it.

[J J Kapsberger]

More important than the method you choose is that you go to galleries and museums and participate in print exchanges and spend a lot of time looking at fine original prints, not reproductions in books or on the internet, so that you know what the possibilities are and what can be achieved, if you work at it.

Good advice which I shall have to follow.

[sepiareverb]

David makes an excellent suggestion. Looking at the best real prints is the only way to see what is possible- ink-jet or silver.

[35mmdelux]

I knew Harvey but didn't know he was a photog.

[mh2000]

The very best wet prints will blow away best inkjet prints, but once you know what you are doing with scanning, PS and printing your average prints will all be way better than your average prints from a traditional darkroom... at least that is how it worked out for me... I guess even with 20+ years experience I was never a "master photographer in the darkroom."

>>As nice as inkjets can be, it isn't the same as wet printing.

[mh2000]

PS Pigment inkjets offer a nice "fineart" look on fiber based papers, but IMO the HP dyebased b&w on dedicated paper looks much richer, has more depth and approximates trational b&w more accurately than the pigments... which tend to look a little flatter to me. The HP dyes on HP paper will outlast pigment on fineart paper too... and probably match most traditional prints for longevity.

[amateriat]

The very best wet prints will blow away best inkjet prints, but once you know what you are doing with scanning, PS and printing your average prints will all be way better than your average prints from a traditional darkroom... at least that is how it worked out for me... I guess even with 20+ years experience I was never a "master photographer in the darkroom."
This crystalizes what i've been trying to say.

PS Pigment inkjets offer a nice "fineart" look on fiber based papers, but IMO the HP dyebased b&w on dedicated paper looks much richer, has more depth and approximates trational b&w more accurately than the pigments... which tend to look a little flatter to me. The HP dyes on HP paper will outlast pigment on fineart paper too... and probably match most traditional prints for longevity.
I wouldn't go so far as say this combo will outlast pigs on fine art papers (too many combinations to compare without going truly nucking futs), but it will likely hold its own...but remember, we're talking about accelerated tests here.

The ace, for me, is that in the case of my HP 8750 (and its predecessor, the 7960, and at least one other printer), there are three black inks in use, full-time, for printing sans color inks, and without the aggravating artifacts that still plague most pigment-ink-based printers (which I'll boldly abbreviate BGM: bronzing, gloss differantial, and metamerism, although the latter isn't as out of control as in the recent past, at least in the most-recent printers using OEM pigs). I'm waiting for HP (I'm off Epson for the time being) to come up with either (a) an updated replacement for the 8750, or (b) an update to the B9180/B8850 that incorporated a third black channel for b/w printing without going the "composite" route. For now, if my 8750 should croak at an inconvenient time, I'll simply hit the 'Bay for another one (maybe I should buy a new one while a few are left in the pipeline...)


- Barrett

[David Goldfarb]

(b) an update to the B9180/B8850 that incorporated a third black channel for b/w printing without going the "composite" route.

A great improvement, but please, no! I'm trying to stay off the insane digital cycle of upgrades. My last printer (which I used only for documents, not for photographs) lasted 12 years.

For B&W on Harman Gloss FB, by the way, with the B9180, I haven't had problems with bronzing or metamerism, but there is gloss differential, particularly if you hold the print at an angle.

[amateriat]

A great improvement, but please, no! I'm trying to stay off the insane digital cycle of upgrades. My last printer (which I used only for documents, not for photographs) lasted 12 years.
I fully grok this, David, though the high-end printer biz has long been busy and fickle...ever-moreso now, with at least three serious players in the market.

For B&W on Harman Gloss FB, by the way, with the B9180, I haven't had problems with bronzing or metamerism, but there is gloss differential, particularly if you hold the print at an angle.
Just curious: is this when using all inks (composite) or just the black/grey inks?


- Barrett

[David Goldfarb]

Just curious: is this when using all inks (composite) or just the black/grey inks?


- Barrett

With the software I'm using (CS2, HP's Photoshop plugin for printing and print previewing, and ICC profiles for the papers I have), I can't set that parameter directly (unless maybe I convert the image to grayscale), so I don't know for sure, but when I print to Harman Gloss FB with the Harman ICC profile for the B9180, I get a slightly warmer tone than I do printing the same images on other papers with other profiles, which I think must be due to some mixing of inks going on.

[visiondr]

Inkjet with good scans will resolve more detail than anything from an enlarger...a 4000ppi scan will pull more from the negatives than will an enlarger.


What the heck are you talking about? You're praising the quality of dots of ink vs a completely dot free, analogue print with completely - one could say - infinite variation in tone from point to point! That's nothing compared to the losses inherent in scanning and post processing. Grain aliasing in scanned negs is just one issue. Every single manipulation of the original along the image chain degrades the image. The more manipulation, the further you are from purity. Wet printing is simply a matter of projecting the image onto paper. If you have an excellent quality enlarging lens and a relatively vibration free environment, then you're good. Compare that with the systems in scanners most of us can afford (not talking an Imacon, here) you have adequate lenses at best. What your saying is meaningless.

That said, Darren should find a way to compare prints made via both systems and make the decision himself. He may find a good inkjet print is the way to go. And that would be fine, but it certainly wouldn't be truer to the original negative.

[J J Kapsberger]

That's only part of it. Working with a decent scan in PS (even if it suffers from nominal degradation) can easily lead to imaging--through selective exposure (burning, dodging), contrast, toning, sharpening, retouching--which might be very difficult and time- and material-consuming to equal using traditional methods.

But, yes, I shall compare negatives printed by both methods. If ink-jet printing comes close, and no I don't yet know what close is, it might be my choice simply on grounds of convenience. Naturally, I understand that ink-jet printing does involve a learning curve.

[visiondr]

That's only part of it. Working with a decent scan in PS (even if it suffers from nominal degradation) can easily lead to imaging--through selective exposure (burning, dodging), contrast, toning, sharpening, retouching--which might be very difficult and time- and material-consuming to equal using traditional methods.


You are absolutely right there, my friend. There is much that PS can accomplish and wet printing cannot. BTW, you don't have to sharpen a wet print. They come that way.