Would you give up rangefinder photography without BW wet prints?

[PATB]

I never thought this would happen this early. The local college darkroom where I print on weekends will not have weekend or after hours open labs due to budget cuts. Since I have a regular job, this means no silver gelatin prints for me. And I cannot find another public darkroom that is readily accessible on weekends.

Since I have a Nikon Coolscan V (I used it mainly for posting on the web), I started to do more scanning and photoshop. It only lasted three weeks until I realized how much I hate scanning (I am still trying to like it..., I may not have a choice in the end). I stopped using the MP and started using the D700 more. Then it dawned on me: I love the process of using an all mechanical rangefinder camera and printing the negatives in the darkroom. Without darkroom access, I don't have the same passion for photography. I will still do it, but not with the same intensity as before. Looking at silver gelatin prints of my family at home and in the office, I am actually sad I cannot find another public darkroom. If the next semester is the same way, I would probably (gulp) give up photography for a while.

How about you? Do you also feel that rangefinder photography is all about silver gelatin prints?

PAT

[Chris101]

I love real photographic prints, and I too utilize my school's darkroom. We are also faced with budget issues, and so have instituted a $50 charge for 6 hours of darkroom time a week for a 4 month (er, 16 week) semester. That rate seems to cover the cost of running the lab (which includes chemistry, utilities and a student helper) just about right, so that the open lab does not impinge on the school's budget.

I have however, done some Nikon Coolscan 5000/Epson R2400 printing with good results. It's not the same though, and nowhere as fun. But give up RF photography? NEVER!

[nikon_sam]

Time to set-up your own darkroom...that way it's FREE...The only other darkroom I have used was in high school...after that I got my own stuff...
Now the equipment is cheaper and the paper more expensive...

[Henk]

I think silverprints are not related to rangefinders, but to beauty.
I happen to use a rangefinder to try and produce some.

Try to setup your own darkroom, you will not regret it.

[jbf]

No I would not. As much as the beauty of film and silver wet printing are a part of my life, if they ceased to exist, it would not stop me from taking photographs, be they digital or otherwise.

[Bassism]

I wouldn't either. I enjoyed photography before I ever discovered wet printing, and I'll continue to love it in whatever form it takes.

But it doesn't have to come to that. Watch Craigslist for somebody dumping their equipment for 100 bucks then go to town. I use a temporary setup in my bathroom, with the big window blacked out by cardboard. A B&W darkroom doesn't need to be fancy.

[John Lawrence]

I wouldn't give up rangefinder photography without black and white wet prints. I would miss them greatly, but without wishing to offend, there's more to the medium of photography than black and white wet prints.

[funkaoshi]

Nah. I like the act of photographing more than the act of printing.

[bmattock]

I don't use rangefinder cameras solely because they please me - I also use them when I think they are the most appropriate tool for the job at hand. I haven't done darkroom work, other than processing B&W film in my kitchen, in decades. I have no interest in or use for a darkroom, enlarger, and etc. I scan, and when I want prints, I upload to places where I can get them.

Therefore, I am not planning on putting away my rangefinder cameras.

And although I sense your post is sincere, there is a tiny bit of 'and if I don't get what I want, I'll take my toys and go home' in it. There is a part of me that wants to say man up and get over it.

[Photon42]

Rangerfinder photography for me is not at all related to darkroom processing. Even though I'm not a big fan of scanning, it works quite well now for me. It has been much more than a decade I've used my enlarger the last time, and I don't look back often. If you will, I've started rangerfinder photography with a scanner.

Cheers
Ivo

[WoolenMammoth]

I printed one silver print this year.

I scanned several thousand film negative frames this year and did post one a few hundred of those. While I love printing, its entirely for myself. If people cant see it on a monitor, in many cases they dont want to see it at all, so my work flow just leans in that direction making it very difficult to justify the time in the wet room. I wish more people (anyone) wanted wet prints from me.

[PATB]

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the aesthetics of digital or digital prints. What I am trying to say is that, for me, the purely analog process is a main part of the attraction. I am an amateur so I am in this for fun. And, for some reason, most of the fun disappears for me without silver gelatin prints.

On the other hand, using a dSLR is a revelation as it is very convenient. I shot some 6400 ISO images of my kids last night and I am constantly amazed at what technology brings to the table. No need for tripods or waiting for enough ambient light. Just shoot when the moment is there. I can send the files to Costco or MPIX to get my usual prints, like I always do for digital. Still, the passion is not there because I am not fond of the process.

[Al Kaplan]

I make wet prints because I like the way they look. If somebody wants one? Fine. I'm not making the prints for somebody else. I spent too many years doing photography to pay the bills. Now it's time to make ME happy. I do my "post processing" in the darkroom. Others are free to do what they like. Forty years ago I built myself a darkroom. Before that I had a temporaryset-up in the bathroom for a few years. Today the darkroom looks pretty much like it did then, same enlargers, easels, tanks, reels, tray, etc. I have no intention to go over to the Dark Side and learn photoshop. I don't need the "speed" of the digital work flow and I've got better things to do with my time than start learning everything from scratch.

[uhligfd]

I have never used modern rangefinders except with Kodak 400 UC negative film and lab processing.

My darkroom days were fun, but so far back ...

[MRohlfing]

No, I would not give up rangefinders.

Anyway, though I like wet printing, I use my rangefinders more often for slides than for B&W

When doing B&W I tend to use my MF cameras Bronica ETRS and Rolleiflex TLR

[thomasw_]

No. I am into rangefinder-based photography until I go the way of all flesh. I have aesthetic and functional reasons for prefering the wet-darkroom. But if it had to go, I know photoshop and digital editing and printing well enough that it would suffice. I wouldn't want to give up my analogue printing methods, though. I recommend creating a home darkroom somewhere....that's what I am planning as annex to my shed ;)

[shadowfox]

I scrounged up stuff for my makeshift darkroom, so I have no knowledge of the "luxury" of using a public one :)

Digital printing is way less fun than wet-printing, but if that's *the only way* I can get a print, it certainly won't make me give up film photography. I get along with scanners just fine, it's the inkjet printers that I have a love-hate thing going :)

[Doug]

When I was going to university, I had a studio apartment with a bed that folded up into a walk-in closet. I left the bed down, made the doorway light-tight, and setup the closet as a darkroom, taking fixed prints and film across the hall to the bath for washing. Point is, there's surely a way to cope like this if it's important to you. Good luck!

[Vics]

I do love the complete process of photography. For me it's the whole thing from loading the camera to drying the print on my living room floor. I used to say I hated printing until I got a Leica and really got serious about it. Now my wife has to drag me out of the darkroom. I would lose interest pretty quickly if it was in any way a digital process. The computer is the tool I use at WORK! Ugh!
Vic

[Mackinaw]

No I wouldn't give up rangefinders. While I really enjoy the darkroom, if silver-based paper and chemicals went away, I'd just scan and print on in ink-jet.

Jim B.

[amateriat]

Much as I love and respect the wet silver print, I have no means of making one properly, even though I own the tools to do so (no proper space to set it all up, even temporarily). I can, and do, develop my own film without problem, but also shoot a lot of chromogenic b/w for its covenience. I love, and prefer, the workflow of film and a good RF camera (or three), and that's not likely to change soon. But I've come to love the good film scanner I have, and have found my way to making really good b/w inkjet prints (search the archives for "HP 8750" and you'll find me and mh2000 raving about this printer, seemingly to excess, I'll admit ;)). My "hybrid" setup works to my satisfaction. But we're all different, which is part of what makes all this interesting.


- Barrett

[oftheherd]

In my case, I haven't used a darkroom in about 20 years. It just hasn't been in the cards. I would like to, but no. I also don't use rangefinders as my main camera. I use what I think I will be most comfortable using at the time for what I want to accomplish. Often as not, that is an SLR, maybe a folder, or even a P&S for snapshots of the family.

So no, I wouldn't. I understand your angst. However, it will be easier than you think if you only need 35mm size negatives enlarged, as I suspect is the case. Look around. Check some books or look at Roger Hick's site on setting up small bathroom sized darkrooms. The end of the world hasn't come yet.

[aparat]

I truly love wet printing. It would be very difficult for me to do photography without wet printing. Perhaps I would get used to it, perhaps not. I scan and Photoshop, too. I don't mind doing it. It just does not give me as much pleasure. That's all there's to it.

[Steve Bellayr]

When you read the biographies of well known/successful/famous photographers, they, after becoming more successful, hired a dark room technician or worked with a lab. I have worked & managed a lab. I did not find working in a wet darkroom satisfing but rather hard work. I much prefer to send everything to a lab that I trust, even if it means waiting inordinate amounts of time...but then again I am under any time pressure.

[gudlagoba]

For me there is little relationship between wet printing and rangefinder photography. You can take the M2 from my cold dead hands (as that Ben Hur guy said)...

I am happy to scan and print digitally. Yes, there is no comparison between a wet print (even on rc paper) and a digital print but if I had no choice, I will take the digital print.

When I got my DSLR, I decided to end the debate in my mind once and for all. I took a series of identical shots with the DSLR and a film camera (Kiev rangefinder with Helios 103 lens). Scanned the film and then printed the DSLR shots and film shots. Comparing the prints, I could see a difference. Film won.
So for me, although wet prints are great, I have no problem scanning and creating a digital print (especially color). It is still better than using a digital camera.

I also have a makeshift bathroom darkroom. It's a PITA to set up but it works and once I gulp down a shot of dektol, I can go on all night... ;)

[nextreme]

I wouldn't give up rangefinder photography, and I don't think you should either.
I've bought 2 used enlargers, along with a free box of "stuff" for $20.00, each time.
At a previous camera show, I bought a Nikon enlarger lens, $30.00

I really like printing too (very challenging), so I understand what you mean.
If it's feasible, look into setting yourself up. The investment will probably be a joke.

Imagine, for the price of a few magazines, I bought decent enlargers that are fine for an amateur like me. In a way, there's has never been a better time to be shooting film !

[skeletron]

If every camera I own, my printer, and my (now in storage) dark room equipment was taken away and I was given a lowest of low-end P&S camera and a rinky dink plug-n-play printer, I'd STILL be taking and printing photographs.

[Florian1234]

A pitty that the reduce their opening hours there at the college's darkroom. But - be also very glad that you have one accessable. My college does have an own one, too, but :bang: that's what I don't unterstand at all they allow usage to art-students only. And I'm not an art-student, but history. So...:rolleyes:

I have bought an used enlarger some time ago for little money (40$ or so), but did not have time and space to set it up and use yet.

[varjag]

I learned wet printing at the age of 10.. I can make a half-decent print, but don't really care for printing in general, gelatin silver or not.

I use film rangefinders because they're nice and natural for me to use.

[migtex]

Print for many many years at my parents photo Studio and lab, then as a Pro Printer in Pro Lab for a decade. Not any more, Life has changed quite a bit since then.
I do prefer take pictures than spend hours in the dark. I don't even try to develop film any more (unless is Tri-x ou Tmax2). Use C-41 for everything and some slides. Scan them and print.. on a printer!
Not the same, no, just different!
Allows me to use the RF's and SLR's and even the DLSR's! I love to have options! Enjoying what I have and not what I miss.

[maddoc]

I didn't have any access to a darkroom for 25 years and have scanned (Epson V700) and printed (Epson Stylus Pro 3800) some of my photos. BW and C41 film I developed myself, though. Just recently I got an Durst M601 with CLS66 color-head for a bargain (together with a EL-Nikkor 50/4.0 and Fujinon 80/4.5) and started wet-printing again (in our bathroom with some black curtains) using Ilford's Multigrade RC paper.

The results I get with scanning / ink-jet look better to me, better contrast and sharper ... :o Additionally, the whole process of scanning, some small level-adjustments in PS and printing take about 10 minutes for one photo, why I need two hours (with setting everything up) for 5 to 6 wet-prints. Also, due to space limitations, I have to set up the enlarger on the floor, which is less than ideal for accurate framing and focusing ... :(

[trix]

I would give up on film for sure and given that the only digital RF is the M8 i think i would give up RFs too.

Scanning negs is an absolute no go for me..gives you the worst of both worlds...endless hours (far more than any digital photographer) in front of your computer AND the cost of film.

[jody36]

I will give it up when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

[Florian1234]

I would give up on film for sure and given that the only digital RF is the M8 i think i would give up RFs too.

Scanning negs is an absolute no go for me..gives you the worst of both worlds...endless hours (far more than any digital photographer) in front of your computer AND the cost of film.

How, if I may ask, do you work now? :)

[trix]

How, if I may ask, do you work now? :)


I expose film with my Hexar RFs, develop and print on FB and RC papers in my darkroom.

[tedwhite]

I began making photographs and developing and printing negatives when I was 12 years old. My father gave me a Kodak box camera that probably used 620 film or something close - a long rectangle I guess you could say. But it was large enough to make a perfectly ok contact print. I would make pictures in the service porch at night, hang a black cloth over the door window, lay my Kodak medalist piece of paper on top of the washing machine, place the negative over it, and then carefully lower a piece of glass over them both. The weight of the glass would press the negative flat against the paper just right, and then I'd turn on the overhead light for X number of seconds. I recall experimenting with with both time and bulb intensity (10 Watt, 20 Watt, etc.) until I got it just right for a normally exposed negative.

And so, with few exceptions, I've had a wet darkroom most of my life. In 1971 I bought a Simmons-Omega B22XL enlarger (does both 35 and 120) and some lenses, Rodenstok Omegarons and Nikors. Later I acquired a Beseler 4X5 enlarger. I still have all of this equipment. I find it's hard to wear out.

I am still awed when I view a properly printed black and white 16X20" print made from a 35mm, 120mm, 645, or 6X7 or 4X5 negative. I don't believe digital black and white prints made from Digital cameras are in the same league.

Only now, due to an expired lease, I haven't a darkroom. But a third, unused bedroom in my house is about to change its name. Fortunately a bathroom is on the other side of one of its walls, so plumbing is not a problem.

In the meantime I have been learning the wonderful world of digital processing (flatbed scanner, film scanner). Developing film at home is easy: change bag and light-tight Nikkor stainless steel developing tanks. But for an older guy like myself, learning Photoshop and both film and flatbed scanners has been an unwelcomed chore; currently a necessity, however.

Sure, I've got a DSLR, but it's purely for commercial use (most of the time) where for the client, content is more important than high image quality. That said, color photography quality with a DSLR is frequently a pleasant surprise.

So for me, RF and SLR photography remain pretty much in the realm of black and white; for color photography I use the digital camera. It seems easy enough for me; when I pick up a film camera I am suddenly color-blind, see only in black and white; my eye isn't seduced by pretty colors and thus I pay more attention to composition. When I pick up a digital camera suddenly it's technicolor time and it's fun. Which, by the way is what I love about photography - it's always such great fun.

[mh2000]

I have a darkroom I haven't used for years... scanning and RF photography work great for me. Get an Epson pigment printer or HP *dye-based* printer that does blank and white prints and you may end up loving scanning. You will get *real* b&w prints that look great... and that, along with shooting cameras you love is what it is all about, right?

[mh2000]

I find the exact opposite. For b&w prints that matter scanning film gets me there way more reliably and mostly in shorter time than shooting digital (that's why I do it! I've got a DSLR on the shelf and good lenses). BW400CN is really your friend... and cheap proofs mean you only scan the ones that you really want to... if you are just interested in dumping hundreds of ok images on the web, by all means, shoot a crappy digital and you will get what you need... I shoot for photos that I can be proud of.

>>Scanning negs is an absolute no go for me..gives you the worst of both worlds...endless hours (far more than any digital photographer) in front of your computer AND the cost of film.

[Al Kaplan]

Contact sheets are the traditional "cheap proofs". Generations of photographers, editors, and art directors managed to work with them, just like they looked at pages of color slides on a light table.

The gallery where I show puts a little card next to each piece telling the medium. With B&W prints it will say either "silver print" or "ink jet print".

[tedwhite]

mh2000:

I have an Epson R2400 wide-carriage printer with, among other inks, matte black, light black, and light-light black. I think it's the type of printer you mentioned?

[mh2000]

sure, I've made contact sheets for years as well... but you have to set up your darkroom etc. etc. to get them made, wait for them to dry etc... and with 35mm view them with a loupe... stopping at Walgreens to get a stack of proofs and then immediately setting to work on the ones you want to enlarge is a great time savings...

as to the gallery... I think the bottom line is that you can show in a gallery with either traditional prints or fine inkjet prints.

Contact sheets are the traditional "cheap proofs". Generations of photographers, editors, and art directors managed to work with them, just like they looked at pages of color slides on a light table.

The gallery where I show puts a little card next to each piece telling the medium. With B&W prints it will say either "silver print" or "ink jet print".

[mh2000]

when you get your paper and settings down the R2400 can produce stellar b&w prints... I use a HP 8750 because I think it looks more like a traditional print... (my gallery didn't put up a sign saying which is which and no one ever suspected they were from an inkjet....

mh2000:

I have an Epson R2400 wide-carriage printer with, among other inks, matte black, light black, and light-light black. I think it's the type of printer you mentioned?

[mh2000]

PS Current favorite RF camera... Retina IIa! :)

(I just love shooting that camera)

[trix]

Get an Epson pigment printer or HP *dye-based* printer that does blank and white prints and you may end up loving scanning.

I have done that for 7 years from 1997-2004 but i did not like it. Today i wonder why the hell i wasted so much time.

You will get *real* b&w prints that look great... and that, along with shooting cameras you love is what it is all about, right?

Thats what i do, i get real prints, not something that looks like a *real* print ;-)

[phc]

My current workflow involves shooting film, giving it to a lab who dev it and scan each frame at about 4mb size. I can edit and categorise on the Mac, get the pics I need scanned at high res (around 60mb), or send them to a printer (I mean a person who prints, not a grey plastic box - currently this is Robin Bell in London).

Cheers, Paul.

[rbsinto]

Am I the only person here who shoots nothing but colour slide film with both my SLRs and rangefinder cameras?
So having said that, my answer to the original question is, no.

[Dogman]

On New Years day I dumped all my darkroom chemicals. My equipment has been collecting dust for months due to general sloth and a lack of time and motivation. I've been shooting with digital cameras more and more. I've satisfied myself that a black and white inkjet print is now more than adequate for my purposes. Several months ago I bought an Epson V700 scanner that I have not used much at all because I was shooting everything digitally. The scans I did get from the V700 of 35mm and medium format black and white film looks pretty good to me. I have a freezer with about 300 rolls of 35mm and 120 black and white film stored away. There are lots of possibilities open right now. I believe it is time to reassess.

As long as I can shoot pictures that interest me and make prints that are satisfactory, the method no longer matters.

[hawkeye]

The rangefinder is at the heart of my photography. It is where my heart and eye find cohesion.

Photography for me has always been about recording what I see which is different from what is in front of me. It is my response to the intersections of time and space.

I started processing and printing like so many others in a closet that grew to a studio apartment and ended up in a professional darkroom in a photo studio. But my BW work ended with the demands of the marketplace which in the 1970s and 1980s turned away from BW and demanded color transparencies. The darkroom lingered but by 1995 was gone.

But the stack of big prints I've made since those days has grown not shrunk and now they are mostly color.

And I struggled with the transition from BW to color back in the 1990s. Luckily I had spent some time with Ernest Haas who had gone through a similar moment in his career. His attitude was to hell with belief systems (like the only good photos are BW) and just enjoy doing this crazy thing we all love to do.

Steve