View Full Version : Silver vs Ink Jet
Bill Pierce
03-20-2009, 10:05
I wonder how many folks who are shooting film are now scanning and ink jet printing their work rather than using a conventional wet darkroom. More important, I wonder how pleased they are with their work.
The best silver printers I know are now ink jet printers, happy at the greater number of tools that Photoshop, Lightroom, e.t.c. offer them over the wet darkroom. They bring, not only their wet printing experience, but a lot of time printing digitally. Their scanners, computers and printers are top of the line; it is, after all, their job. And they feel they are doing a better job with ink jet than silver.
But, on this forum and others, I hear a lot of talk about how ink jet is the devil’s work and will never equal the quality of a silver print. I also presume that folks who say this have other uses for the 25 to 30 thousand that can easily be dropped on top of the line scanners, computer and printers - and that they have other things to do with their time rather than master a new medium.
My question is this - is ink jet really an inferior system supported by the devil? On the other hand, even if ink jet offers both quality and more creative options, what’s wrong with enjoying a little time in the damp and the dark with a process that has proven it is capable of beautiful results?
Obviously, there is no absolute, correct answer. But it is, for some reason, such an emotionally charged issue, that I’d just like to hear what people think - silver vs. ink jet .
rogue_designer
03-20-2009, 10:14
For me it's a different process. Not better or worse, just different. Everytime I hear someone say an inkjet looks "just as good as" or "just like a silver print" I wince a little. I wouldn't say a platinum palladium looks like a FB silver print, or a van dyke. They are different processes.
I like the output that I've gotten from the higher end of the ink jet printers. The output is very very good. Especially when working from a decent scan.
With a good rip, and a good inkset, BW (or warmtone, or whatever tone) very high quality (and easily reproducible/consistent editions) prints can be made.
I enjoy darkroom work still. It's meditative, and fun. I like the smells, the process, and frankly, the look that I get from some negs and papers (and processes).
But I also enjoy the level of control, and detail that printing digitally from a good scan gives me.
Ultimately, I take it on an image by image basis. Some images I just feel are right for one medium or another, and treat it accordingly.
Living in a smallish condo in the city, that does more often mean digitally, since I can do more of the work from home, rather than going to the rental lab to print. So the convenience is a factor at the moment. I don't know if that would change considerably if I had easy access to my own darkroom.
Rambling a bit... I guess. Ultimately. I don't see it as an X vs. Y proposition. They are complimentary processes, and the image - or the look of final image - is what drives the decision of which to use.
Benjamin Marks
03-20-2009, 10:25
I would agree, but give a pared down version of rogue_designer's analysis. Different beasts. I generally don't print color in the darkroom so there is no direct comparison there. I happen to really like the look and feel of a semi-gloss fiber surface in traditional silver wet prints and have never been as satisfied with my b&w work off an inkjet as I am with silver gelatin. Or maybe a better way to say it is, the inkjet prints I have been most happy with have been on matte paper surfaces and even the best of those will not be as pleasing to my eyes as something with a little luster. With the platinum and silver prints I have on the walls, the image seems to reside "in" the paper rather than "on" the paper as it does with my inkjet prints. I suspect that one's answer to this also has to do with one's own visual education. I grew up looking at gelatin-silver b$w prints and that is what looks "right" to my eye. Interested to hear what others say.
Ben Marks
dazedgonebye
03-20-2009, 10:30
I like the ink jet prints I get (all carbon inks on an Epson R1800) and I've seen inkjet prints far better than mine.
In any case, a wet darkroom is a practical impossibility for me.
BWin silver. color on an inkjet.
for neutral b&w I think my HP 8750 beats pretty much everything... pigment on mat fine art papers can be lovely in its own way, but yeah, the surface of a glazed FB traditional print is much niver to my eyes... the the results I get from film scans are *usually* much better than I could ever get in my traditional darkroom.
The people who are most vocal about one being better that the other simply haven't used the other enough to say... or they or just not good at it. Excellent results can be had from both... but once you know your way around PS and all the other hurdles, scanning is probably more often better on most levels.
PlantedTao
03-20-2009, 11:46
I agree with rogue designer...
one is not better than the other and if it is, the individual is responsible for the better results, not the process.
I prefer the darkroom. I spend too much time on a computer and find no joy in using the "ink-jet" process. I find great joy and satisfaction in film and the final print produced from a darkroom. For me, a lot of joy and happiness comes from working in the darkroom, I believe the final product reflects this. Not so when using PS. I get frustrated and annoyed by sitting at a computer again... the work is rushed (even tho I try to slow down) and the final print just doesnt reflect a "creative" spark... hence my silver prints always look better.
Todd.Hanz
03-20-2009, 11:57
Timely question as I have just recently gotten into the darkroom from digital. So far, as a newbie, I am not proficient enough to answer but I can tell you the darkroom is a fun place to be. Watching prints emerge from the developer, setting up the enlarger, etc. has been fun.
I have a lot of inkjet prints that are good but I'm not sure they compare to the stuff I've been getting from the darkroom.
Todd
For B&W, I choose silver. I enjoy the process, and it doesn't require the investment of inkjet. For color, I outsource most of my printing. Again, because of the required investment.
Wonderful question imho :)
I personally develop my own B&W and scan - manipulate (i.e. get rid of dust, adjust mid range contrast and sometimes a mild duotone) in photoshop and then, usually, upload at full res for viewing (over on Flickr).
That said, I have been considering, more and more, a lower end "pro" printer (Epson 3800) because I actually do want some control over B&W printing. I could, as you mentioned Bill, spend a lot more money on a scanner - heck the $20,000-$30,000 you mention merely scratches the surface for some Imacon scanners - and a higher end printer (Some of the really wide format Canon and Epsons are huge money) - but I think I'd be happy with just what I have (Nikon 5000, Mac Pro, NEC 26" monitor and that Epson).
That said, is it comparable to a wet print? I really think, nowadays, it is getting there. About 5 years ago I would have said that it still is better to wet print but for me, now, I prefer working in the light :) I don't want to deal heavily in the chemicals (safe disposal can be a pain in the butt for me), and I just don't have the space (I live in a condo). So for me, the digital printer allows me the best of both worlds option - I still get my film fix but I also get my digital fix as well.
Wet darkrooms are fine and nostalgic for me but I always end up shielding my eyes upon my exit because I spent so much time in the dark :D
Cheers,
dave
I do both darkroom & inkjet prints. I love the look of both of them. However, I don't think they are that comparable. The paper I use is different, the process, and in the end so is the look. They both produce wonderful results, but they don't look the same.
I've seen great examples of both. For me, scan and inkjet lets me do B&W printing -I have no room and little appetite for a wet darkroom.
sepiareverb
03-20-2009, 12:49
Silver all the way baby, be it B&W or color. I do print proofs of the book I'm working on with a color Laserprinter...
The third way; the relief of suffering
Confucius he say ''Agfa D-LAB.2"
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2364/2162705568_d9b3bfdef1_b.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2364/2162705568_d9b3bfdef1_b.jpg)
my precioussss
I do silver printing and I sometimes get C-prints or inkjet prints done. I do mostly B&W, and I enjoy darkroom work so much that I cannot see myself giving it up in the future. B&W inkjet prints from scanned B&W negatives can look really good, with nice tonality, and detail. The multitude of inkjet papers helps accomplish different looks. I have not had much success with B&W inkjet prints from color digital files.
I am planning to take up color wet printing this summer when I am less busy at work.
Stewart,
Who's servicing those now that Agfa is, well, basically, no longer?
Dave
Stewart,
Who's servicing those now that Agfa is, well, basically, no longer?
Dave
I don't know, but I hope someone does. I am lucky to have an Agfa lab in town. I love the color prints they make!
Stewart,
Who's servicing those now that Agfa is, well, basically, no longer?
Dave
they are modified Fuji machines, I think, the colour profiles have "fuji" in the file name
they print better, and cheaper, than I can anyway :(
PPS the lab have three now working 16 hours a day, so others feel as I do
Brian Sweeney
03-20-2009, 13:42
I bought a color ink cartride for the ink-jet yesterday. Nikki needed some pictures for a school scrapbook, and I made a collage. Not as good as Lab prints, not as good as my old dye sublimation Phaser-IIsdx printer. Okay for a school scrapbook. The ink cartride was more than having 10 rolls of 24 exp color prints done at Sam's club.
Al Kaplan
03-20-2009, 13:52
When I bought this house in the fall of 1967 my first priority was building a dedicated darkroom. By summer of '68 it was operational. There's a 2x7 foot sink along one wall, a counter big enough for two or three enlargers, lots of shelf space, a forced air film dryer which dries the film on the reels with filtered air, lots of timers for every thing, convenient switches for both white and safe lights, a light trapped door, and an air conditoner. My original plans were good. 41 years later everything is just about the way it was then.
At this point I can't see spending the money on equipment for any sort of sophisticated digital output, nor can I see spending (wasting?) the time learning to reinvent the wheel. For B&W I'm staying wet.
When I bought this house in the fall of 1967 my first priority was building a dedicated darkroom. By summer of '68 it was operational. There's a 2x7 foot sink along one wall, a counter big enough for two or three enlargers, lots of shelf space, a forced air film dryer which dries the film on the reels with filtered air, lots of timers for every thing, convenient switches for both white and safe lights, a light trapped door, and an air conditoner. My original plans were good. 41 years later everything is just about the way it was then.
At this point I can't see spending the money on equipment for any sort of sophisticated digital output, nor can I see spending (wasting?) the time learning to reinvent the wheel. For B&W I'm staying wet.
what would you do if you moved house? as i did in 1999
For B&W, I choose silver. I enjoy the process, and it doesn't require the investment of inkjet. For color, I outsource most of my printing. Again, because of the required investment.
Enlargers can be had (decent ones) that'll do that for about $400, plus another $100 or so for the trays, chemicals. Paper cost is similar to ink jet and processing chemicals cost WAY less than inkjet ink.
Al Kaplan
03-20-2009, 14:17
Stewart, I own the house free and clear. Florida allows a homestead exemption for property tax plus they can't by law raise your taxes by more than three percent per year. If I move into another comparable house at this point my property taxes will likely triple. Last year I took advantage of a state program to upgrade my house, new roof, doors, and windows etc. to "current hurricane code". That about cut my storm insurance in half, and if I stay here for seven years the money the state "loaned" me for the upgrades will be forgiven. If I sell or convert the place to a rental property before the seven years is up I have to pay it back. I'm more or less retired, so why would I move? No mortgage, next to no property taxes, a major drop in homeowners insurance, staying here makes too much sense. Plus I got me that great darkroom!
Enlargers can be had (decent ones) that'll do that for about $400, plus another $100 or so for the trays, chemicals. Paper cost is similar to ink jet and processing chemicals cost WAY less than inkjet ink.
This was one of the things I was wondering and you've sort of satisfied my curiosity. High end ink jet paper is pretty expensive but having never bought developing paper of equivalent quality I can't make a comparison ... I do know that ink cartridges for my Epson 2400 are dear and the printer needs to be used regularly to avoid head blockages. I also resent the way the damned thing wastes ink when switching the matt black to photo black by doing this head cleaning dump that it does ... that's a poor design IMO!
I also worry about the learning process of using an enlarger and chemicals ... getting the end result may take several attempts with subsequent waste while no doubt darkroom curmudgeons like Al have the process mapped into their brains by now! Where to dodge ... where to burn ... how much contrast ... what filters etc etc.
The intimidation factor in switching to a wet darkroom is high if you're starting off cold ... it certainly keeps me away at the moment!
chris000
03-20-2009, 14:57
I always think that silver should be better, but the truth is that this is not necessarily the case.
I have never been fortunate enough to have the room for a pemanent darkroom. So when I used to wet print, the hassle of setting everything up, trying to keep the process dust free, cleaning up afterwards and trying to survive a very hot and chemical laden atmosphere when working, always meant that my heart was not really in it.
I was pleased with some of the results I achieved with wet printing, but to be honest the prints I produce on my Epson 2880 on Hahnemulle paper are far superior.
I like the results I get from the combination of film and inkjet printing and I won't be going back to a darkroom.
Stewart, I own the house free and clear. Florida allows a homestead exemption for property tax plus they can't by law raise your taxes by more than three percent per year. If I move into another comparable house at this point my property taxes will likely triple. Last year I took advantage of a state program to upgrade my house, new roof, doors, and windows etc. to "current hurricane code". That about cut my storm insurance in half, and if I stay here for seven years the money the state "loaned" me for the upgrades will be forgiven. If I sell or convert the place to a rental property before the seven years is up I have to pay it back. I'm more or less retired, so why would I move? No mortgage, next to no property taxes, a major drop in homeowners insurance, staying here makes too much sense. Plus I got me that great darkroom!
i owned both, what would you do if you could move to another home you could afford?
Al Kaplan
03-20-2009, 15:04
Keith, the intimidation factor is why I'm just now learning how to use a very basic scanner/printer combo...LOL It's just so damned easy to stick a negative in the enlarger, focus on the base board, think "hmmm, a #3 filter over all for 12 seconds, dodge this and this for as few seconds, switch to the #0 filter to burn down those highlight areas, do a 1"x5" test strip, decide to give two extra seconds to the final print and POOOOF, there it is. I made my first print in the spring of 1961, bought the enlarger in 1965, and had her trained within months. I blow a bit of cigarette smoke at her on occasion to calm her down (and diffuse the image a bit), but she's a good hard working enlarger. Is that ink jet printer going to still be smiling at you 44 years hence? We each choose the tools we feel most comfortable using.
Al Kaplan
03-20-2009, 15:12
Stewart, I could afford to move to another house, I just can't see why I'd bother. Also, being "able to afford" doesn't fit in with my parsimonious nature. As my grandfather taught me, a penny saved is worth more than a penny earned. You earn a penny and you owe income tax on it, while the penny saved is earning interest.
I have a Coolscan 9000 and an Epson 3800 and I think my prints look great--until I compare them to the same negative printed traditionally. The traditional print is more luminous and 3D than what I get from my digital equipment. However the control you gain working digitally makes up for nearly the lionshare of the difference.
Enlargers can be had (decent ones) that'll do that for about $400, plus another $100 or so for the trays, chemicals. Paper cost is similar to ink jet and processing chemicals cost WAY less than inkjet ink.
I would note that one needs the space to be able to to put in a wet darkroom - a condo bathroom (as I have) is not really enough room to house it.
I have enough "bedroom" space, however, to easily house a good digital darkroom set up - and I didn't have to do any renovations to get it there.
Dave
Stewart, I could afford to move to another house, I just can't see why I'd bother. Also, being "able to afford" doesn't fit in with my parsimonious nature. As my grandfather taught me, a penny saved is worth more than a penny earned. You earn a penny and you owe income tax on it, while the penny saved is earning interest.
Al,
I think what Stewart is saying is - what would you do, if, for example, your house, for some reason or other, suddenly collapsed, became engulfed in flames, blew away with the wind, floated away with a sudden rising tide (you do live in Florida after all :D) or got zapped by the Borg and you, most definitely, HAD to move.
What would you do then?
Dave
Stewart, I could afford to move to another house, I just can't see why I'd bother. Also, being "able to afford" doesn't fit in with my parsimonious nature. As my grandfather taught me, a penny saved is worth more than a penny earned. You earn a penny and you owe income tax on it, while the penny saved is earning interest.
PM me your street address and I'll send you a $2 12x18
Al,
I think what Stewart is saying is - what would you do, if, for example, your house, for some reason or other, suddenly collapsed, became engulfed in flames, blew away with the wind, floated away with a sudden rising tide (you do live in Florida after all :D) or got zapped by the Borg and you, most definitely, HAD to move.
What would you do then?
Dave
yep, my darkroom is in crates in the garage, has been for 7 or 8 years
Al Kaplan
03-20-2009, 15:53
What would I do if the house went bye-bye? Odds are the ex would invite me to move over there for however long it took to get mine rebuilt. Her dogs would love it!
Yes, inkjet is the devil's tool, no question about it. Worse than his wicked pitchfork. In the darkest reaches of Hell, Epsons and HPs and Canons sit spewing out portraits of his Wickedness with that oh-so fetching demonic smile. And yes, the reds, what rich luscious reds! To make matters worse, the loading dock of Hell is plied high with deliveries of ink jet paper that looks virtually indistinguishable from double weight fiber base paper! For what? For turning out black and white prints that look identical to.... PORTRIGA!!! In the far corner of the Great Hall, Those who have Sinned stand chained, endlessly throwing photographic enlargers into the furnace...Durst, Omega, Beseler....
Meanwhile, up in Heaven, floating on a great Ansel Adams cloud lined with Silver, Our Lord and Saviour is mixing up a sea of Dektol.....
Frankly, I find the Devil a much more interesting and compelling character. Yet Both produce gorgeous prints. Use what you like, what you prefer, what you can afford or think you can afford, or whichever you think is more "spiritual" . I am happy to be able to use both, to have my skills with one inform the other, etc. But isn't this just a silly rhetorical argument? Obvious, as Bill says. Obvious like the endless film vs. digital arguments. Is it an emotionally charged arugement? Beats me as to why?
Al Kaplan
03-20-2009, 16:39
There are those amongst us who are Orthodox and those who Protest and those who feel compelled to Evangelize...but some of us refuse to convert. Ag rules!
(The Devil made me write that.)
David William White
03-20-2009, 17:23
All of my shooting and darkroom equipment is rather old, but will probably outlive me. On the digital side, there appears to be a constant process of upgrading cameras, scanners, and printers. Seems an expensive proposition to switch.
I also have a darkroom at the cottage. I've got no electricity, but I can still shoot, develop, print (& maybe someday sell) with not a computer for 50 miles.
All of my shooting and darkroom equipment is rather old, but will probably outlive me. On the digital side, there appears to be a constant process of upgrading cameras, scanners, and printers. Seems an expensive proposition to switch.
That may have been the case some 5-7 years ago when digital was in its infancy (still) - now, that's a different story - the "steps" on upgrades to bodies (there's no need to upgrade lenses once you have good ones) are now minimal and, if anything, somewhat gimmicky. The public still believes, in general, that the more megapixels the better so you have 21 MP and larger full frame DSLRS when, really, 6MP or 8MP is probably suffice if you're comparing it to 24x36mm film.
Scanners? Unless you're going with Imacon, there's hardly any 35mm scanners anymore - Nikon (and maybe the low end Pacific Image or PlusTek) is the only game in town. If you're talking medium format then I doubt you'd need to upgrade any Imacon scanner (but I don't know about those).
Printers? well, again, maybe 5-7 years ago - apparently the latest Epsons (up to the 4800) are incredibly durable and can produce stunning prints - as I said in this thread; my intent is to get a 3800 for my home use - and I'm in a huge city that can offer Giclee as well as other types of printing - I just prefer to have a bit more control over the process for "that look".
I also have a darkroom at the cottage. I've got no electricity, but I can still shoot, develop, print (& maybe someday sell) with not a computer for 50 miles.
That's awesome - but again, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, that's because you have the room to do so - something that, to me, comes at a premium and my intent is not to move to a house unless (and if) a child ever comes along. :)
Cheers,
Dave
This was one of the things I was wondering and you've sort of satisfied my curiosity. High end ink jet paper is pretty expensive but having never bought developing paper of equivalent quality I can't make a comparison ... I do know that ink cartridges for my Epson 2400 are dear and the printer needs to be used regularly to avoid head blockages. I also resent the way the damned thing wastes ink when switching the matt black to photo black by doing this head cleaning dump that it does ... that's a poor design IMO!
I also worry about the learning process of using an enlarger and chemicals ... getting the end result may take several attempts with subsequent waste while no doubt darkroom curmudgeons like Al have the process mapped into their brains by now! Where to dodge ... where to burn ... how much contrast ... what filters etc etc.
The intimidation factor in switching to a wet darkroom is high if you're starting off cold ... it certainly keeps me away at the moment!
Darkroom is FUN. no need to be intimidated. I can't stand the chemistry anymore though...
I wish I had both. There are a lot of things that I do that work just fine printed with inkjet. But not just any inkjet. I have an Epson 2100 that I have pretty well learned inside and out, but when I want an inkjet print oh say, 30"x40" that someone looks at and says Yeowks! I go print on a friend's HP Z3100. B&W or color, that's an amazing printer.
But if I had a darkroom in my apartment, I would print a lot of small 8x10~ B&W prints and shoot a lot more B&W film. And the prints would make people go Yeowks! because they would be small and hand made out of silver on nice paper.
While I find the reproducibility of inkjet printing far easier, I spend about the same amount of time :bang: with each method. YMMV. :)
I also have a darkroom at the cottage. I've got no electricity, but I can still shoot, develop, print (& maybe someday sell) with not a computer for 50 miles.
Cool. a candle powered enlarger. Or is it kerosene?
Al Kaplan
03-20-2009, 18:40
I'm sticking with Ag
thomasw_
03-20-2009, 18:55
I have a strong preference for the look of Ag wet printing. Though there are times when a damaged negative can turn out better if taken through PS and a scanner/inkjet. I see the two printing processes as creating different looks and often with a similar aim, though not necessarily always.
Al,
I think what Stewart is saying is - what would you do, if, for example, your house...snip...became engulfed in flames, ...snip...and you, most definitely, HAD to move.
What would you do then?
Dave
Darn, Al disappointed me with his answer. I thought he was going to say he would light up another cigarette and start shooting some color. :D
benmacphoto
03-20-2009, 19:59
When I first started with photography I did all of my printing in a out dated darkroom with enlargers that made making an 8x10 print was nearly impossible. I then moved to working with an awesome darkroom where I made near perfect 16x20 prints. Yet over the past several years I have fine tuned scanning film and printing with Epson ink jet printers. Using a Nikon 8000 supercool scan and an Epson 11880 I have made prints that are tonally far superior than what most people can do in the darkroom.
The technology for ink jet printers has increased dramatically. The print heads on the redesigned Epson printers can print at high speed 1440 and produce extremely fine detail. A huge improvement has also come from paper companies. I just started printing with Ilfords Silk Fiber Paper, and guess what, it is made from the same paper as their darkroom fiber paper. So, with fine tuning one can make prints that emulate silver printing right down to the paper.
So, with fine tuning one can make prints that emulate silver printing right down to the paper.
Yeah, exactly. Only you can also create unique prints that have a tactile feel and look like double weight b&w prints but with unique and subtle color qualities. You can get prints that look and feel like dye-transfer prints with some of these new papers. You can also print on silk and who knows what else. But anyway, I refuse to take sides. I have two current gallery exhibits (two different bodies of work). I printed one in inkjet (or call it glicée so you can charge more for the prints) and one in the wet darkroom. All good. A great and amazing time for photography. No regrets, no looking back, embrace it all or choose what you like.
Al Kaplan
03-20-2009, 20:52
Marke, I run a roll or two of mostly ISO 200 COLOR FILM through my cameras every week. I shot a roll Wednesday. Walgreens made me 4x6 prints. I scan them and post them on my blog. Lately it's been mostly commentary on city politics, and featuring Monkette, my toy monkey. Two years ago during the last North Miami city elections my blog, www.thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com was getting more hits than the Miami Herald's on-line coverage of the election. Monkette was a guest of honor at Mayor Burns' victory party and a couple of days later the mayor requested her to pose with him in front of one of his large campaign signs in front of Starbucks.
Hey, it's all in fun and the photos aren't great art for sure, but they are COLOR pictures. Monkette insists on it! With May elections coming up and her stellar track record of chairing winning political campaigns she's thinking of increasing her fee this year. She's currently negotiating with two candidates for a city council seat and the mayor's position.
A friend of mine I visited this morning has just come back from one of those organised motorcycle tours of northern India and got to spend time in Bhoutan. Aside from digital shots he took a film point and shoot (Leica CM) and a few rolls of XP-2 because he likes black and white. He had the Ilford developed at a reputable Brisbane lab and got 6x4 prints done for each roll. When he showed me the prints I was shocked ... they were really average with incredibly poor tonal range and appear to have been done by one of those Fuji one hour machines that scans your film and puts out very ordinary inkjet prints with exposure adjustments made with whatever default settings lie within the machine ... obviously the printing capabilities of these lab machines doesn't extend to doing decent black and white from monochrome C41!
I want both, which means I want silver process to continue, and I'm a little nervous about it, which makes me touchy. Nothing can touch direct analog process. Digital is always translation of fact into language via machine. I like ink jet prints better than photo litho, but less than silver.
Harry Lime
03-21-2009, 03:35
Well, of course inkjet is the devil's work and will continue to be the spawn of Satan, even if inkjet surpasses the IQ of divine silver prints. ;-)
I've seen some really impressive and gorgeous black and white inkjets. In particular those done on something like Jon Cone's Piezo system. Apparently you can now print on gloss with his system; if you are willing to jump through a few hoops. It is getting to the point where I really have to examine certain b/w prints up close to tell the difference. Behind glass it's sometimes impossible. From a technical standpoint my biggest problem with inkjets is that this very complex process is very poorly documented. There is no single book I know of that will walk you through all the steps needed to produce a truly professional print.
But ironically just as inkjet technology is maturing, there is a new competitor for the ultimate IQ; a twist on an old technology. Ilford has released a glossy black and white silvergelatin fiber paper for machines like the Fuji Lightjet. You can now produce 'real' silver prints, with all the advantages of Photoshop etc.
Metro here in London invented the process with ilford www.metroimaging.co.uk
I went down to Metro last year and they walked me through the process. The output is astonishingly good. I saw a table with dozens of work prints of photos from Nachtwey, Gary Knight, Griffith Jones Phillip and others and they were spectacular.
So, unless you need the convenience and economy of owning your own inkjet setup, this is a real alternative. The only problem is that the Ilford/Metro setup is not widely available. Worldwide there are only a handful of labs doing this and it's not exactly cheap.
Some of the operators in these labs are also guarding the process like it's a black art. One fellow tried to convince me that there was no relaible way to generate an .icc profile for their set up, which of course is total nonsense. Instead I was supposed to just give him my file and he would take care of it. Again, nonsense. I want the image to match what I set up on my calibrated screen at home. I also can't afford to make several test prints, as he tries to dial in the look I'm after.
Personally I'm going to go with the Metro setup. I really prefer the look of glossy silver gelatin fiber paper over anything else. If Jon Cone comes up with a glossy process for his carbon inks I would seriously look in to that and set up a system at home.
I still make wet prints, but only from negs that are relatively straight forward to print. I'm no master printer and anything complex gets done in Photoshop or Nuke and is output digitally.
My mate and I, happy together for 30 years, made the final payment on our 30-year mortgage last December (our anniversary month), giving us $1,300 additional disposable income per month and now allowing me to buy additional darkroom paper and chemicals as needed! That means my Leica film cameras and lenses will be producing superb images for decades to come and I can continue to thoroughly enjoy many more darkroom experiences without leaving home.
Terry
Bill Pierce
03-21-2009, 12:19
Perhaps the experience of my friends who are “darkroom nuts” will be of interest and use. They are all professionals, but professionals who, whenever possible, did their own black-and-white, sliver processing and printing. A number of them, the photojournalists, began to use digital early in the game because of deadline and transmission pressures. Although everything from Photoshop to inkjet printers (and the cameras themselves) were far below the level of today’s gear, they began to experiment with inkjet printing, often using the same “black only” setting used for type.
As the computer programs and ink jet printers were getting better, it was getting harder and harder to maintain the wet darkroom. It was getting harder to maintain an inventory of favorite papers, especially exhibition quality graded fibre; stock seemed to be growing more inconsistent. Top of the line enlargers like the big Durst units ceased production and replacement parts were difficult to find. (Without exception, everybody used top-of-the-line, expensive enlargers and put a lot of time into maintaining them. After all, the images from every camera and every lens went through that enlarger. It was THE link in every chain that led to a print.)
The digital cameras, picture processing programs and printers got better. Maintaining a wet darkroom became more expensive and, in some cases, actually saw a drop in quality in equipment and materials. Slowly, and with the regret that anyone has when an old friend slips away, silver printing got left behind.
Film, to a small extent, still stuck around. There was no digital equivalent to the full frame 35 pocket cameras like the Minilux or the Contax. There was no affordable equivalent to the old 8x10 view. And in any format, film negative had greater exposure latitude than digital. So, some folks kept the film portion of their darkrooms; some shot only large formats and stripped down to a three tray outfit that would have made Edward Weston proud. Some closed the darkroom and used CN films with their Minilux and custom darkrooms with their Deardorff.
There were a lot of solutions, none of them perfect. And the final blow came when you realized that if you never shot another frame of film in your life, you still needed an expensive, top quality scanner to make digital prints from your film past. For many, that was the way that “film still stuck around.”
The young professional has no choice but to be digital. It’s brought many advantages. But, it’s been a little rough on the wallet.
Thoughts?
Al Kaplan
03-21-2009, 12:49
I haven't done all that much photography for clients in several years now. I used to do a lot of public relations photography, mostly for people in the political arena. I guess that accounted for 50% of my gross. That's all gone now. There's always somebody in the office with a DSLR or point and shoot. They mostly take lousy pictures but "they're good enough" and "they're free!" People understand the concept of copyright but that doesn't stop them from scanning and making as many prints as they want and not telling you. In theory I'm retired now. When somebody asks me to shoot something I tell them that I still use film and at the end of the shoot I'm going to hand them the unprocessed rolls. They can get it processed and scanned and do whatever they want with it. Just hand me a check for the shoot.
I still have my files of negatives and contact sheets going back half a century and more, and I still have a couple of enlargers set up. This week I have to go through the 1963 and 1964 files and locate and print up some images of Bob Dylan. There were plenty of other photographers at those concerts but the fact that I've kept those files is the important thing.
I'm not sure that today's young photographers will have any accessable images fifty or sixty years later. It just might be rougher on their wallets then than it is now.
photogdave
03-21-2009, 15:06
I gave up on inkjet printing because I didn't print enough to make it cost effective. My heads would always end up getting clogged and it would expend a lot of ink to clean them. I always end up with a disproportionate amount of ink and paper.
All my digital printing is now done in the form of Apple iPhoto books. The results are pretty good and I get more creative control than putting 4x6 prints in a photo album.
Now that I recently bought a townhouse with a laundry room (haven't moved in yet) I'm seriously thinking of putting a semi-permanent darkroom in there. I used to abhor the darkroom when I HAD to use it to print under deadline, but now I'm looking forward to more photography time away from the computer.
Chriscrawfordphoto
03-21-2009, 15:16
Fuji Frontier machines do NOT make inkjet prints. The machines uses lasers to expose RA-4 color paper, which the machine processes normally after the digital exposure. The quality can be incredible with a properly set up machine and a good digital file.
Harry Lime
03-22-2009, 01:27
Thoughts?
I think you're right.
The new shooters are an interesting bunch. Many have never shot a frame of film in their life. Others shoot digital, but are also enthusiastic about black and white film. Some scoff at film. Usually these are the ones who would be dead in the water if the auto exposure program on their camera failed, because they don't even know what 18% gray is.
I think digital has been a two edged sword for professionals and photojournalism in particular. The good part is that instant transmission from the field has allowed photography to regain it's competitiveness with TV. On the other hand the extensive automation and instant feedback has turned the ability to make a properly exposed picture in to a commodity. Not everything requires the compositional skills and human insight of a James Nachtwey. In a society that is driven by the bottom line and 'good enough' attitude, that's enough of a reason to toss the Canon G9 to the production assistant and have them shoot something instead of hiring a real photographer.
Perhaps the experience of my friends who are “darkroom nuts” will be of interest and use. They are all professionals, but professionals who, whenever possible, did their own black-and-white, sliver processing and printing. A number of them, the photojournalists, began to use digital early in the game because of deadline and transmission pressures. Although everything from Photoshop to inkjet printers (and the cameras themselves) were far below the level of today’s gear, they began to experiment with inkjet printing, often using the same “black only” setting used for type.
As the computer programs and ink jet printers were getting better, it was getting harder and harder to maintain the wet darkroom. It was getting harder to maintain an inventory of favorite papers, especially exhibition quality graded fibre; stock seemed to be growing more inconsistent. Top of the line enlargers like the big Durst units ceased production and replacement parts were difficult to find. (Without exception, everybody used top-of-the-line, expensive enlargers and put a lot of time into maintaining them. After all, the images from every camera and every lens went through that enlarger. It was THE link in every chain that led to a print.)
The digital cameras, picture processing programs and printers got better. Maintaining a wet darkroom became more expensive and, in some cases, actually saw a drop in quality in equipment and materials. Slowly, and with the regret that anyone has when an old friend slips away, silver printing got left behind.
Film, to a small extent, still stuck around. There was no digital equivalent to the full frame 35 pocket cameras like the Minilux or the Contax. There was no affordable equivalent to the old 8x10 view. And in any format, film negative had greater exposure latitude than digital. So, some folks kept the film portion of their darkrooms; some shot only large formats and stripped down to a three tray outfit that would have made Edward Weston proud. Some closed the darkroom and used CN films with their Minilux and custom darkrooms with their Deardorff.
There were a lot of solutions, none of them perfect. And the final blow came when you realized that if you never shot another frame of film in your life, you still needed an expensive, top quality scanner to make digital prints from your film past. For many, that was the way that “film still stuck around.”
The young professional has no choice but to be digital. It’s brought many advantages. But, it’s been a little rough on the wallet.
Thoughts?
i think you summed it up best. I love my film cameras, but its really resigned to nostalgia and special purpose use these days. Just about the only camera i run film thru for the last year has been an M2 and an Xpan. Now with my m8 (which is by no means perfect), film is relegated to just the xpan!
The digital cameras, picture processing programs and printers got better. Maintaining a wet darkroom became more expensive and, in some cases, actually saw a drop in quality in equipment and materials. Slowly, and with the regret that anyone has when an old friend slips away, silver printing got left behind.
Film, to a small extent, still stuck around. There was no digital equivalent to the full frame 35 pocket cameras like the Minilux or the Contax. There was no affordable equivalent to the old 8x10 view. And in any format, film negative had greater exposure latitude than digital. So, some folks kept the film portion of their darkrooms; some shot only large formats and stripped down to a three tray outfit that would have made Edward Weston proud. Some closed the darkroom and used CN films with their Minilux and custom darkrooms with their Deardorff.
Thoughts?
The problem I have as a non-professional photographer is that my darkroom equipment has long ago paid for itself. I could be wrong, but for me at least, the digital / electronic arms race seems more costly. Periodic upgrades in camera bodies, software upgrades when migrating to a newer computer and upgrading or replacing printers aren't a trivial expense for the non-professional photographer.
Inks and paper, which I'll call consumables, are not less than my cost to produce an old-school B/W silver halide print - BUT - they are surely a more rapid way to print - AND - unless you've upgraded your printer and inks to something different, should you want multiple prints at a later date, identical prints are only a few mouse clicks away.
As a photo hobbyist, my personal preference and photo signature is to capture my daily routine as best as I can on 6x9 negs. I've finally run out of APX 25 and have begun using Rolleipan 25. I use either FP4 or ADOX CHS 100 for hand-held. It's more expensive than storing images on a memory card and slow, but the prints are gorgeous. There is no chance that a commercial photographer could make a full-time living with 8 frames to a roll of film.
So, I must fully agree with the purpose of this thread, if I have read its intent correctly. Film and darkroom printing have become a labor of love for many of its current practitioners. However, I hope its practitioners piddle on a while longer.
Al Kaplan
03-22-2009, 05:18
Andrew, it's a matter of perspective (pun intended). While I was still doing a lot of product shots I made the switch from sheet film to 120 roll film in a ten exposure back because it was a lot cheaper and there was no real need to shoot 4x5 for the quality required.
When it comes to B&W I'm also in that position where my stuff is all paid for. I don't think that I've really added to my darkroom equipment since about 1970 except for a new Weston thermometer, and a friend gave me a couple of Time-O-Lite timers, but they're still sitting there unused "just in case". The rest of the things were bought, mostly used, back in the 1960's.
photogdave
03-22-2009, 09:14
In a society that is driven by the bottom line and 'good enough' attitude, that's enough of a reason to toss the Canon G9 to the production assistant and have them shoot something instead of hiring a real photographer.
All too true. For many aspects of photography. :(
Fuji Frontier machines do NOT make inkjet prints. The machines uses lasers to expose RA-4 color paper, which the machine processes normally after the digital exposure. The quality can be incredible with a properly set up machine and a good digital file.
Shhhh you're giving away secrets there, let'em think what they like, the truth can be inconvenient
Fuji Frontier machines do NOT make inkjet prints. The machines uses lasers to expose RA-4 color paper, which the machine processes normally after the digital exposure. The quality can be incredible with a properly set up machine and a good digital file.
This is going to be past in near future, too.
The new Frontier is dry minilab based on inkjet.
One of the former Kodak minilabs here in Bratislava got rid of RA-4 machine and replaced with Noritsu dry lab. I have to check the results, yet, but they claim higher resolution and wider gamut. I'm curious.
This is going to be past in near future, too.
The new Frontier is dry minilab based on inkjet.
One of the former Kodak minilabs here in Bratislava got rid of RA-4 machine and replaced with Noritsu dry lab. I have to check the results, yet, but they claim higher resolution and wider gamut. I'm curious.
"confucius he say" look for the Agfa D-lab+2 logo, Glasshopper
Chriscrawfordphoto
03-22-2009, 13:00
This is going to be past in near future, too.
The new Frontier is dry minilab based on inkjet.
One of the former Kodak minilabs here in Bratislava got rid of RA-4 machine and replaced with Noritsu dry lab. I have to check the results, yet, but they claim higher resolution and wider gamut. I'm curious.
Wow, I didn't know Fuji had begun making the inkjet based systems. I've heard of the Noritsu, but have not seen on installed where I could try it.
First you learn to tolerate and then you might learn to love.
I was excited about inkjet printing 10 years ago but became disillusioned with it, especially in B&W. I went back to the darkroom, upgraded my enlarger, bought Rodenstock and Schneider enlarging lenses and a new archival washer and a bigassed 4-blade easel. My B&W looked pretty good.
But I guess I got old and lazy because I bought a digital camera to play with. At first, I only used digital for color. It looked pretty good. I tried some B&W and it looked okay. I could tolerate it, given that my tired old arthritic back could take short periods at the computer much better than those long printing sessions in the darkroom. After a while I discovered I liked the results I was getting in B&W. I started scanning my negatives and found inkjet prints looked okay from negatives as well. I started liking it. I haven't used my darkroom in about a year--other than for processing an occasional roll of film.
Film is expensive but I have enough frozen to last me for about a decade at the rate I use it now. I can justify continuing to shoot film. However, paper processing is another story. Those chemicals are also expensive and, unless you use them fairly soon after purchase, they go bad. Printing paper has gotten very expensive at the same time it has gotten lower in quality. And the time it takes is a major factor when I consider how life getting shorter daily. Maintaining a darkroom only for occasional printing is not cost, time or space effective anymore. I really don't like to think about it but all this fine equipment will probably soon to up in the attic with the other stuff I no longer use but can't bear to give up.
Just to add another wrinkle, I watched a well known Platinum/Digital Negative teacher make a 11x14 digital negative and print to Ilford FB air dried for someone else. The results were outstanding. The picture was a portrait of Miss Thailand. In this case it was DSLR file, but a scanned film negative would work just as well. The negative was contact printed using light from an enlarger and contrast filters as normal. Interesting twist.
literiter
05-16-2009, 08:26
We have a little "Mom and Pop" picture framing venture. We are considered to be pretty good by quite a few. We take exceptional care with work that we receive....I mean white cotton gloves etc.
Some digital prints scare the hell out of me. The surfaces can be so fragile that it cannot be touched, even with cotton gloves or the paper used to separate the prints, and is usually received by us damaged in some way.
I should point out that I think this stuff can be incredibly beautiful, and I think a good digital print is certainly worth the effort but a good silver gelatin print, done well, is not only as beautiful but a lot easier to work with.
My 2 cents.
robklurfield
05-16-2009, 09:41
Ink jet printing is a great alternative for klutzes like me who never got comfortable in the dark dipping my fingers in the fixer or stop bath. I will forever feel a little embarrassed at my scant wet skills, but my ink jet results are nicely predictable. While a have found memories of time spent under a safe light, as I get older and time seems to move faster, there being less of it, I prefer to spend my photo hours shooting rather than printing. I do miss the magic, however, of an image resolving from latency to visibility before my, almost always surprised and delighted, eyes.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.