The Wet Darkroom

[Bill Pierce]

I know that there are many on this forum that have chosen to stick with film rather than go digital - and many that shoot both film and digital.

But how many are sticking with wet darkroom printing - and why/ I know that collectors may put a premium on silver prints. But that wouldn’t seem to be a major concern to those among us who are not “collectable” and couldn’t give a damn. Many photographers who were concerned with print quality started investigating digital printing early in the game. Richard Avedon would be a good example.

You do have more control over the appearance of the final image. We’re not talking about glitz and cute effects; we’re talking about contrast, brightness, density and the local controls that parallel burning, dodging and bleaching.

Could it be that the wet darkroom is a nice place to hide. I used to get a lot of reading done in mine because when anybody knocked on the door and tried to interrupt me I would just yell, “Dark - Sorry!”

So - do you use a wet darkroom? If so, why? If not, why?

[gho]

I do not use a wet darkroom because I do not have one! If I had room for a comfortable lab I would use it without hesitation. Just for relaxation, experimentation and enjoyment.

[Juan Valdenebro]

I have tried -a few months ago the last time- to get digital B&W prints from the best lab here: and I mean the best printing technology available today, and the best papers. Even with such a grade of control, to my eye, the blacks and the tonal range are not ones that I like better than those of traditional fiber paper. It's not bad at all, but yet I prefer the wet darkroom look on final prints. Clearly, if one day I saw a digital print surpass my traditional printing looks, I'd leave wet printing. Maybe it's just the taste I like... But I think I am not imagining what I see...

Cheers,

Juan

[pesphoto]

I shoot digital all day in a studio for work. So having my darkroom waiting for me on the weekends is my escape. Ive been building it from the ground up in the basement and it is the one thing I have total control over.

[pschauss]

For me, the initial choice was based on the cost. When I began to get back into photography nine years ago after a 30+ year hiatus I looked at the idea of scanning film and processing the images on my computer. After adding up the cost of a scanner, printer, and an upgrade to my computer it looked to me like I could set up a simple wet darkroom for a good bit less money.

[jackbaty]

I've recently assembled a darkroom in my basement. It's like magic. The wet prints I get aren't nearly as good as what I can get with some simple image manipulation and a good inkjet printer, but I enjoy them more anyway. It feels like I'm making something.

[PlantedTao]

1. I work at a computer pretty much all day. I get tired of computers and having to look at a screen. A darkroom is a nice break from this.
2. I love film and the capturing process. If I was to go digital, I would give up on film... I don't like the scanning process... seems like you should just start with a digital file to begin with.
3. I love the process of making a print. It is a place to hide... time is very different in a darkroom. It is broken down to seconds and minutes, which to me really seem slower than normal. It still feels magical to me when I see my first print come out of the developer.
4. I like telling others how I made the final print. :) Most do not care, but it means a lot to me. The final product brings me a lot of joy.

I willl probably never make money off my photography and do it for myself. I like the darkroom process and the different environment it draws me into. It is a great hobby.

Jason

[sepiareverb]

Wet printing still seems a lot cheaper to me as I'm starting to look into a digital workflow. I can't believe the price of inkjet paper compared to RA4. Different animals to be sure, but plain paper for twice the price (some of it six times the price??).

I love the darkroom. The sound, the safelights when printing B&W, even the total darkness when C-printing- but most of all the tactile part of it- the handling of light as it goes to paper.

[presspass]

I work with digital output in our weekly newspapers but still shoot film every week, some for myself and some for the papers [and scan the negs]. But I also print black and white weekly, some for a longterm [35+years] documentation of our volunteer fire company - display prints in the engine rooms and meeting room walls as well as annual books. I enjoy the darkroom, the pace of work, the gratification when it goes right, and even the disappointment when it doesn't. I'm not ready to give any of that up to spend more time in front of a computer screen.

[topoxforddoc]

I do both dark and light rooms. Depends on timescale and spare time available. I prefer wet printing to dry printing personally.

[Ronald M]

I have many wonderful film Leicas and lenses and it would be a shame not to use them.
Nothing is as cool as a screw mount, nothing as precise as an R, nothing as quick handling as an M. Cost of film is neglible. The darkroom is a place of quiet and relaxation.

I have been working with scanned film & KM5400 original scanner. Grain is prominent
and even if I use TMax 100+D76, it looks nasty on my computer. In fact it looks like 1960 Tri X pushed. Same negs look georgous printed thru Leica enlarging lenses and Focomats.

Color at home is a pain, always has been. I am quite capable, but paper and chems are increasing difficult. I used my Nova slot processor and color is as easy as monochrome once I am set up, but the aforementioned problems remain.

Decent digital came along and that has usually become my medium of choice for color. I do the fun, post process, and have a pro lab make the prints. They worry about chemicals and paper. I just get their profile, and tell them to print without correction. I happen to be using Nikon D700, 200, 40 as appropiate.

When things change and I can no longer have a darkroom, then monochrome conversion from digital is quite credible. I can add grain, make it sharp like rodinal, or mushy like Microdol, vary the blend to keep the grain in the midtones only. I can tone like I no longer can do with real photo paper. Honestly I defy you to tell it had digital origin.

So I willl be sad, but I can live with digi when the time comes. In the meantime, black and white film rules.

[mathomas]

I like the idea of a wet darkroom, but it's just not in the cards for me. We don't have the room or dedication to do it.

On a related note:

Out of curiosity I ran an experiment. I ordered an 8x10" wet/optical print of one of my B&W negs from my local pro photo shop. My intention was to compare the wet print to the output from my (very) run-of-the-mill photo printer (Canon MP610, printing from a neg scan from the same lab). Well, to my surprise, there is no comparison -- my wife and I both vastly prefer what I was able to do with a basic photo printer.

Of course, my digital print was lovingly hand-adjusted by me in Aperture and Nik Silver Efex, and whatever the lab did was in essence only a proof, given that they had no printing instructions whatsoever other than cropping. Still, this proved to me that since I'm never going to have a wet darkroom, the digital print is the way to go for me.

Now to figure out how to do archival digital printing, should I decide to try to sell some prints someday.

[Bill Pierce]

I have tried -a few months ago the last time- to get digital B&W prints from the best lab here: and I mean the best printing technology available today, and the best papers. Even with such a grade of control, to my eye, the blacks and the tonal range are not ones that I like better than those of traditional fiber paper. It's not bad at all, but yet I prefer the wet darkroom look on final prints. Clearly, if one day I saw a digital print surpass my traditional printing looks, I'd leave wet printing. Maybe it's just the taste I like... But I think I am not imagining what I see...

Cheers,

Juan

Juan -

I promise you that you can get digital prints that are on the same level of quality that you can get with silver. But....

In all probability you are going to have to make the prints yourself, on top flight equipment and with a significant amount of experience under your belt. Woops, that's also usually what you have to do to get a good silver print.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Juan -

I promise you that you can get digital prints that are on the same level of quality that you can get with silver. But....

In all probability you are going to have to make the prints yourself, on top flight equipment and with a significant amount of experience under your belt. Woops, that's also usually what you have to do to get a good silver print.

Thank you for your words, Bill...

I do use digital black and white prints too, of course... For example I make a lot of grayscale (and photoshop toned) poster size prints for gifts (family and friends) on common pro lab color paper, and I like them and my relatives and friends feel they're great prints and what's more important, they enjoy those photographs a lot in that size...

Some other times, I have seen myself in the need of processing contrast digitally from a nice shot that wasn't perfectly exposed, so to go beyond the somewhat more limited options offered by my darkroom, I have gone to high quality digital B&W printing, for example for a customer who's used to wet prints and wouldn't enjoy a photograph on normal color paper for digital grayscale files... And the last time I did it, I must admit the paper and results were surprisingly good... Very close to wet printing. I think it was a digital matt Bergger paper... The lab owner's very friendly and knows me well a lot of years ago, and smiling he told me soon I was going to accept 100% digital B&W printing, and I guess you're right, Bill: the change is happening, or maybe happened already, and the quality is here, and as you say, it requires new efforts from a learning point of view, and requires some investment too... So, you're right.

But sometimes, when a negative's great, wet prints look almost magical... Don't they?

Cheers,

Juan

[Greg M.]

Bill Pierce sez...
"So - do you use a wet darkroom? If so, why? If not, why?"

I maintain a sink, and the various tanks and reels... I shoot a fair amount of B&W film, because I just love my old film cameras, so... and I like the look and feel of the film images, and I enjoy the road that Craft takes me along... and if my friends/family/The Boy Scouts (my son is a Scout, and I make pictures of him and his Pals 'n Buds) can't wait for the pix... I just shrug and smile.

I don't print, anymore... I scan the negs, and use the marvelous and wonderful Internet to send them 'round, or have them printed (ftp to a shop with a Fuji printer), or publish them myself, in my various Web "places".

I haven't actually made a silver print since 2001... I still have my Big Blue Besseler, with the motor that screws up televisions, up and down my half of the block, that I live on... but it stays unused. I'm sure that the half-dozen bags of Dektol that I have around are nicely brown, now (I prop open the porch door with an OOOOLD five-pound can of Dektol, that once belonged to the Boston Bureau of United Press International)...

I can make a scan that looks REALLY nice, not quite up to my best prints... but the Average Scan is better than
my Average Newspaper/Wire Service Print ever was. I can tailor my negatives to the scanner, during exposure and development, in much the same way as I might have tailored my negatives to a particular paper, or enlarger.

The only downside of shooting B&W film, is that... every once in a while... a client, or potential client, might see a picture that I've made in B&W, and call to see if, "We can get that in color...".

Then again, they always called and asked the same question, when I was shooting nothing but B&W at UPI, back in the early '80s...


Greg.

[nikon_sam]

So - do you use a wet darkroom? If so, why? If not, why?


Yes, I do...I started in high school and have never left it...
I find that shooting, developing film and printing are all part of my B&W photography...I enjoy all three parts equally...
Being able to think about camera "A" loaded with film "B" dipped in developer "C" then printed on paper "D" is what keeps it fresh and exciting...
When I started way back when, all three parts were there maybe if when I started all I did was take the picture it would be different for me now...I'm glad it was there in the beginning...:D :cool: :p

[Keith]

My Epson R2400 currently gives me results for black and white, which is all I print, that I'm pretty happy with. I generally get a print exactly how I want it first time so there is little wastage of ink or paper, both of which aren't exactly cheap!

I would like to wet print but I'm hesitant about costs and I don't mean the costs of producing a beautiful black and white fibre print but the costs of the inevitable throw aways to get to that stage.

If I had money to burn I wouldn't hesitate!

[Frankd]

I like other above do digital photography all day for work and find myself in front of a computer screen much of the time. For my personal work I prefer film--mostly B&W these days. I like working in a wet darkroom--quiet, with a good stereo going and taking my time to get the prints I want. I enjoy the craft and change of pace. When on the computer one is subject to distractions.

I'll admit that I can get some good B&W prints off of my Epson 3800 but I still prefer the process and craft of optical printing. Color is a different matter. Since I lost my access to a wet color lab I have been doing mostly printing color off of the Epson with scanned negatives.

[Vics]

I've been shooting Tri-X, developing it myself in D-76, and printing it with Dektol since 1969. It's just in the last 10 years that it's really coming together for me. It has never occurred to me to change anything without a good reason. I've been using PCs at work ever since they came on the market. I never wanted to work at a computer for my photography.
Vic

[mathomas]

I'm envious of you guys with darkrooms but I don't think I'm hard-core enough to justify one for myself. When I was growing up in the 70s I was lucky to have neighbors who had a full darkroom and the nice cameras (Rollei, Nikon F, Hasselblad) to go with it. I had a lot of fun with one of that neighbor's kids shooting and then doing prints in their darkroom, so I can certainly appreciate the process.

[KenR]

I still use film and the wet darkroom for B&W. I think that there is a sense of craft and and a deep satisfaction from a fine wet print that I don't get with a digital print.

[jpa66]

I used to use a local darkroom, but am currently in the process of building one in my ( soon to be finished ) basement. Back when I was in grad school, I managed to convince my parents to let me convert a room in their basement to a darkroom. Once they moved, I had been without one for many a long year.

I prefer printing in the darkroom because I prefer the results. I find a wet print on a quality paper to be far superior to a digital print. I think that it's more difficult to print this way, but the satisfaction of seeing the end result is well worth it to me. I not only like the look, but the feel as well. I liken wet printing to listening to vinyl versus digital - while digital can sound very good, a quality vinyl rig with a decently mastered record will beat a cd hands down every time ( and don't even get me started on compressed digital files ).

If digital ever reaches the point where it gets redundant to use a wet darkroom, then I'll quit. But then again, once that point is reached, why bother with film at all?

And also, I still feel a bit of the old magic when the print first starts to appear in the developer tray...

Jan

[jpa66]

I still use film and the wet darkroom for B&W. I think that there is a sense of craft and and a deep satisfaction from a fine wet print that I don't get with a digital print.


I agree 100% with this statement. I know that it may come across as eletist when I say this ( and maybe it is ) but I can remember the time when it took skill to shoot and print a good photograph, and the art of photography was held in high regard ( relatively speaking ). I miss a bit of that. Not the eletism, but the fact that you actually had to learn a craft and practice at it. Nowadays photography seems to be so ubicquitous that the actual craft ( and dare I say art ) has been cheapened to the point where it rarely seems to be seen as a medium of artistic expression.

Sorry about the rant...

[shadowfox]

Making a digital print is like writing a book. You can stop at anytime, you can tweak your image or digital negative to your hearts content. It's safe, it's reversible, it's marvelous, it's flexible, but it also won't give you an adrenaline rush.

Printing in the darkroom is like calligraphy, half-a-second too long or too short here and there, there goes your print. And that means you start all over again. It's frustrating, it's slow, it's inflexible, but it's also exhilarating.

I don't think it's elitist at all to prefer darkroom, just as it's not wrong to prefer digital printers. But it's useful to know why you prefer one over the other.

Thanks for the question, Bill.

[degruyl]

Personally, I get better B&W results in a darkroom. I use printers for color, and built a 4x5 B&W darkroom in my apartment. I can print up to 16x20" silver prints fairly easily, with 11x14 and 8x10 very easily.

I also do alternative process printing. Some of which is from digital generated negatives.

I no longer shoot much digital (I don't enjoy the camera) or much 35mm... So now it is somewhat faster to work with wet printing. Much faster in terms of seeing the results. My printing lab takes forever, and the black is horrible.

I am sure that you can get decent inks, but apparently you have to own a printer if you want to play that game. I do not have this kind of trouble with color.

[Bill Pierce]

The one thing I didn't think about when I started this thread was that to get a good digital print from film, you have to have a good scanner. You need a high pixel count, often the ability to take on a 35mm silver negative with a big density range and, in general, a precise, rugged machine. And those don't come cheap. Remember, a good Imacon (Hasselblad) is going to cost you 10 to 20 thousand dollars, and you are going to be constantly told that isn't as good as a drum scanner.

Admittedly, compared to less expensive scanners, the increase in quality is incremental and the increase in price overwhelming. Between the cost of the scanner and the time it takes to master it, for many folks getting a good scan from a small negative may be out of the question. In those situations, silver, especially if you already own a good enlarger like a Durst and some top lenses, may be the answer.

And now, just to produce some cries of outrage, the cheapest path to a good ink jet print starts with a good digital camera. (Sounds of bottles and beer cans being tossed at the message poster.)

[Juan Valdenebro]

Making a digital print is like writing a book. You can stop at anytime, you can tweak your image or digital negative to your hearts content. It's safe, it's reversible, it's marvelous, it's flexible, but it also won't give you an adrenaline rush.

Printing in the darkroom is like calligraphy, half-a-second too long or too short here and there, there goes your print. And that means you start all over again. It's frustrating, it's slow, it's inflexible, but it's also exhilarating.

I don't think it's elitist at all to prefer darkroom, just as it's not wrong to prefer digital printers. But it's useful to know why you prefer one over the other.

Thanks for the question, Bill.

Hey Will, that's so clever! Adrenaline...

I hadn't noticed it! The whole thing is an adventure, one that includes expensive time and materials with an uncertain end... As shooting film, it's a tough game... Fear and hope... Mmmmmmm....

Cheers,

Juan

[Juan Valdenebro]

...the cheapest path to a good ink jet print starts with a good digital camera.

That's so true... If not enlarged, film loses a lot... It a real shame, and this could be what ends up giving us all the last push...

Cheers,

Juan

[kbg32]

I am all digital as far as printing goes. I spent many years in the darkroom honing the craft for myself and printing for others. I studied with Sid Kaplan, printer extraordinaire. Being in the darkroom was alchemy, magical, frustration, happiness, and a good scotch. I think those that believe that digital printing is crap, don't spend the time to hone the print end of the craft. Everything I know about the darkroom can be used in the "lightroom", of course with differences. Being in the "lightroom" is a craft as well. It don't come easy. There are so many fine papers to choose from nowadays, it is possible to duplicate most darkroom printing paper surfaces.

There are aspects of wet printing that I do miss. There are many aspects that I don't. Lightroom or darkroom? I look at it with the same attitude and feeling. Except now I never mistake the scotch for undiluted Dektol!

Sid Kaplan by Howard Christopherson

[FrankS]

I really enjoy the hands-on craft of traditional film photography, film developing, and wet printing. No digital prints for me. I sometimes scan a neg or a print to share on the internet, but I find it tedious.

[telemetre]

I do all my printing in the normal way (read wet printing). Actually never had a digital print made, so I don't have a clear idea about the quality of digital prints. But I wouldn't want someone else to do my printing, without the darkroom, I think, photography would be much less fun.

[AgentX]

I only recently came back to shooting and processing (b/w) film. I'm trying to learn to scan it well, but just haven't gotten the knack yet. I also don't have a way to get images off the screen and onto paper at home (or even in the country/region where I'm currently living...).

The idea of a wet darkroom--a place where I understand things--is a nice, comforting fantasy, but I move around between different countries every 1-4 years for work, with housing that's unlikely to be able to accommodate a darkroom. So dragging all that crap around just isn't going to cut it. I suppose I should be very happy that there's a digital alternative; I just haven't begun to master it quite yet. Getting to be OK with Lightroom 2, but that's about it.

But I'm also not willing to invest in some elaborate scanning/printing setup until I have mastered it...I have an old Coolscan IV and a new Epson V700...trying some US-based printer services to see how good of an image I can get from my home scans, since that seems more practical than having my own expensive printer setup to maintain and safeguard against the vagaries of travel, third-world electricity, and the myriad ants I see crawling in and out of the keys on my keyboard as I type this...

I'm also eager to see some seriously high-quality inkjet prints when I'm back in the States this summer, just to see what is possible. My old college photo prof warned me that "while inkjet can look really great, it just doesn't have that magical skin..." I'm hoping some of the newer inkjet papers, like Museo Silver Rag, might help with this.


Can anyone recommend some print or web-based literature to clue me in to the basics of hybrid/digital workflows, techniques, and terms? I mean, I really don't viscerally understand what scans/prints of various resolutions should look like, etc.

[Rob-F]

I will always keep my wet darkroom for B & W shot in my Leicas. Digital equals neither the results nor the pleasures of darkroom work. For color prints, Digital is the way to go. For B&W, I'll stick with the silver image.

[Tom Rymour]

About 36 years ago my three-year old daughter was sitting in the darkroom with me, at the end of the wet bench, watching her face appear on paper in a tray.
She said: "Daddy -- what makes the picture come?"
I said: "Magic."
And she said: "Oh, Daddy -- I can SMELL the magic!"

Dilute acetic acid will always be a magic aroma to me.

[Mablo]

I love to read this thread. Please continue to tell your stories. They are all fascinating.

[anu L ogy]

I dont have a wet room at home. I set one up not too long ago, but ended up scrapping the project because I felt that using the darkroom at the local community college was easier.

I've never tried printing digital, but I would have a hard time believing that it was any where near as fun as printing in a darkroom.

[Harry Lime]

I'm between a rock and a hard place.

I like wet printing. It's fun, exciting, magical etc. I place a higher value on darkroom prints, because I know just how hard it is to produce something of outstanding quality. They also are truly are handmade and there is something very special about that. There is a real sense of satisfaction in making a good wet print.

To my eye nothing beats a traditional wet print. It still is the benchmark against which all b/w photo reproduction is measured, although I have to admit that inkjets have matured considerably over the last few years and behind glass it's often difficult to tell the difference.

But my main problem with wet printing is the difficulty in making a truly high quality print. It's one thing to plink around in the darkroom and another to be a master printer. At some point you almost have to decide if you are going to become a photographer or a printer. That said there are a handful of shooters that are/were also master printers (McCullin, Eugene Smith, Ansel Adams etc), but they are far and few in between.


Ultimately I want a print that represents as close as possible what I imagine the image should look like. And personally I am only going to get that level of control from a digital process. I love the romance of the darkroom, but if I have to choose between that and getting a print that represents my vision I'm going to go with the later. Therefore I'm going to go with a high end inkjet system (Piezography K7 glossy).


If money was no object I would send my work to a lab that uses HARMAN GALERIE FB DIGITAL, which is a real Baryta/Fibre base photographic paper based upon traditional B&W silver halide technology. It has panchromatic sensitivity optimised for tricolour laser enlargers such as Durst Lambda and Océ Lightjet. This is the holy grail of b/w printing. I've seen prints made with this paper and you can't tell the difference between them and a handmade wet print, simply because they use the same materials and process (except for the actual exposure). Basically you get the best of both worlds. All the control of Photoshop and the look and feel of a traditional wet print.

But it's an expensive option and there are very few labs that offer this service. METRO in London is the inventor and developed the paper with Ilford. A&I in Los Angeles also offers this process, as does a lab in Berlin and Elevator Digital in Canada. There are a few more scattered around the globe, but not many.

[Harry Lime]

And now, just to produce some cries of outrage, the cheapest path to a good ink jet print starts with a good digital camera. (Sounds of bottles and beer cans being tossed at the message poster.)

I hate to say it but you're right (dons helmet, dodges brick).

With film you're at the mercy of the quality of your scanner and a scanner that can wring every last ounce of information from a negative costs as much as a good car.

I have the Nikon 9000ED and it's quite good, but everyone keeps telling me it's not as good as an Imacon. When I pay for an Imacon scan there is always someone around to point out there they are not as good as a drum scan. Recently I got a drum scan and the crusty old guy behind the counter told me that as good as they are only a traditional enlarger will get the most from a negative.

You simply can't win...
;-)

[Turtle]

For B&W, wet prints retain that magic. Also love the fact that they are hand made, have incredibly depth and are analogue i.e. imperfect. You can see the touch of a living being in them and on them through the imperfection of both grain and other subtle clues. The imperfection of reality is important to me. Cleanness and perfection might seem nice but they take us further away from ourselves. I don't like that.

I am over two years into the biggest project of my life and possibly the biggest I will ever shoot and I decided to shoot film and print traditionally because of the subject matter. I wanted the viewer to look at the images and just know that they are images of real things, real moments and real circumstances. While you can mess about with prints in the darkroom, they still carry this stamp of assumed fidelity* which I feel is very important for documentary work. It has cost an arm an a leg because I have not been able to print it all, so have had to use a pro printer, but do I regret it? Not a bit. It has been a challenge to get negs to prints and prints to scans/digi copies for the internet, but I have had the time and it is not something that matters in this case I dont think. It will be done when it is done... after all, when it takes 3 years in total to shoot something, what is a 3 month wait for the exhibition prints to be finished and the website updated?

* I say this because you can mess about with traditional prints an awful lot, but the viewer at least knows you have almost certainly not added or removed things.

[oftheherd]

I was never a really skilled printer. But I did enjoy wet printing. I lost my enlarger in a house fire and due to not having enough insurance, wasn't able to replace it. When I got my first scanner, flatbed with a 35mm film capability, I was happy. Prints again! But not really. Even with my Epson 4870 now, and an HP printer, I am not really happy with the prints I get. Sure they are nice and fairly easy, but they just don't seem the same. I have acquired an Omega 4x5 enlarger, some tubes and a roller motor. I need enlarger lenses and I will be off and running again.

Not great wet prints, but a lot more fun for me.

[sonofdanang]

Here's the thing of it: if t'were easy, everybody would be doing it.
I'm with Harry and RobF on this one. I travel for six months of the year and considering that I've come back to a different address for the last five years, it has kind of blown a hole in my wet-room.

For the more modern processes, they have shown me that the real value is in the content. After a certain threshold of technical quality, I stop seeing the form, the medium. And McLuhan is mis-quoted.

Best,

Shane

[amateriat]

I shoot film a good 80% of the time, even for the occasional paying gig. I shoot digital only on request, and that's only if I can't (gently) request otherwise.

Otherwise: as much as I revere the wet darkroom, I never had the facilities for a decent (not to be confused with "effing fantastic") darkroom, and when I had the opportunity to buy my first decent 35mm film scanner in 1998 (a second-hand Nikon LS-10), the writing was on the wall, and I gave up wet-printing then and there.

And that felt strange, because while no one at the time took digital cameras all that seriously (well, outside you PJ guys who had those DCS thingies shoved in your hands), no one I knew understood the "hybrid" process of shooting/developing film and going digital for post. I felt rather alone, but at the same time excited: for the first time, I could handle color output totally on my own, scanning my slides with relative ease, and make quality prints on-demand, no waiting, no late-night runs to Mannahatta for prints. In time, black-and-white scan and print quality would be up to snuff, good enough for Prime-time exhibition stuff.

I've stuck to this formula ever since. You'll find a digital camera in my hands from time to time, but total digital workflow hardly does it for me. I shoot film, I develop film (the conventional b/w stuff, anyway), then I scan it, tweak it (gently) via PS, archive it, and eventually print it. Unless and until my fairy godsomethingorother lays a couple of M9s on me, that's how it'll be for the foreseeable future. I'm good with that.


- Barrett

[amateriat]

I hate to say it but you're right (dons helmet, dodges brick).

With film you're at the mercy of the quality of your scanner and a scanner that can wring every last ounce of information from a negative costs as much as a good car.

I have the Nikon 9000ED and it's quite good, but everyone keeps telling me it's not as good as an Imacon. When I pay for an Imacon scan there is always someone around to point out there they are not as good as a drum scan. Recently I got a drum scan and the crusty old guy behind the counter told me that as good as they are only a traditional enlarger will get the most from a negative.

You simply can't win...
Ah, but then we get to the cameras: you have yourself a Canon 20D, and people whisper: yeah, that's cool, but you don't know what you're missing till you wrap your hands around a 5D...and so on. It's just as insidious, as far as I'm concerned.

I've been working with a Minolta 5400 (first version) for about the last six years. If I wanted to, I could always re-scan the film on something better if it actually mattered. (It "matters", just not terribly much.)

I say: keep using the 9000, and don't sweat the whisperers.


- Barrett

[Bill Pierce]

I've been working with a Minolta 5400 (first version) for about the last six years. If I wanted to, I could always re-scan the film on something better if it actually mattered. (It "matters", just not terribly much.) - Barrett

I heard from someone at Imacon that the Minolta was one of the undiscovered treasures of the scanning world, delivering very high quality at a reasonable price. Of course, it's discontinued.

[MatthewThompson]

Yep. Getting an order together for Vistek now. Out of film too.

[Harry Lime]

I heard from someone at Imacon that the Minolta was one of the undiscovered treasures of the scanning world, delivering very high quality at a reasonable price. Of course, it's discontinued.

That's the big Dimage Multiscan II; which was the counterpart to the Nikon 9000ED. I've only ever heard glowing reports about it.

There are a few usergroups on the net that help locate replacement fluorescent bulbs and spare parts.

[Calzone]

At some point you almost have to decide if you are going to become a photographer or a printer. That said there are a handful of shooters that are/were also master printers (McCullin, Eugene Smith, Ansel Adams etc), but they are far and few in between.

Eloquently stated, and this is what I aspire to become in my own limited and simplified way.

For me digital is a very steep learning curve that does not suit my intelligence and personality. I take ownership that I am a slacker who dislikes complexity, and digital for me is rather intimidating. Much respect to those that are good/great in digital.

I limit my photography to mostly B&W and I utilize a limited selection of films and developers. I try to hone my skills to gain both control and consistentcy so that I attain negitives that can be straight printed.

Right now I only shoot and develope film using a changing bag. Although I have an enlarger and a second bathroom, the rowhouse I rent in NYC gets rattled every time the number 7 train goues by and that is every 3-4 minutes.

Decades ago I was a rather accomplished printer. It will be interesting to see if I still have that edge. Later this year I intend on moving and then begin printing again. For me a wet darkroom is easier, while digital remains intimidating. I am a bit of a throwback: only recently did I learn how to make a call on a cell phone. Whenever someone leaves a message, I ask the girlfriend to check it for me. Like I said, "I am a slacker," but I never knew anyone with a complicated life that was happy. You can call me lazy.

Cal

[maclaine]

Great stories in here from everyone. Mine is somewhat different, I think, at least for RFFers, although poking around on various Flickr groups has shown me it's slightly more common there.

I am a self-taught amateur, and it wasn't until I stopped taking awful pictures with my dad's OM-10 and bought a Canon dSLR that I finally started learning how to take pictures properly. The moment I felt comfortable with the process, I put the dSLR on a shelf and shot film. That was about 5 years ago, and after only picking up the dSLR two or three times since, I ended up selling it. Now the only digital camera I have is an iPhone.

I'm also of a slightly younger age than some folks on here. Of course, I have memories of taking film photos either on 110 film or 35mm when I was younger, but my real interest in photography didn't occur until after the digital revolution kicked in. Like lots of folks my age and younger, I feel as though I'm part of the pendulum swinging backwards towards film. Digital will never go away, of course, but people are recognizing a value in film that digital wasn't able to kill completely. The "old ways" of doing things can not and should not be lost to the march of progress.

After years of shooting mostly Tri-X, I realized it was time to take the final step and develop and print my own pictures. I signed up for a dark room class at a local adult ed center, and that was it. I fell in love with film photography even more, and now have my own enlarger. I don't have dedicated space for it in my apartment yet, but with a bit of effort, I can convert my bathroom into one. It's truly a joy, and I hope I never have to stop doing it.

I scan and post my negatives online, but the ones I think are really good I'll print. Since I take mostly pictures of my friends, street stuff, and the things happening around me, I usually give away my prints to the people I know who are my subjects. The reaction they have from getting a real wet print can't be matched by a simple ink jet print, and for me, that is where the true value is. It's a totally analogue, "real" process, and I think people genuinely appreciate it more.

Wet printing and film in general may have been a pain in the ass to newspaper people, sports photographers, documentary reporters, etc. in the past, and I feel as if they were the people who embraced digital the strongest, followed by somewhat lazy amateurs who were not interested in the work required to take decent pictures. Digital has its place there. I don't like to make generational distinctions, usually, but for someone like me and perhaps younger photographers shooting film, the dark room and analogue photography in general does not represent a hindrance to our work that needs to be overcome, but rather another tool in the toolbox to express a view of the world in a new way using old methods.

[amateriat]

I heard from someone at Imacon that the Minolta was one of the undiscovered treasures of the scanning world, delivering very high quality at a reasonable price. Of course, it's discontinued.
That's a pleasant eye-opener. Whether they were referring to the Multi Pro, as Harry says (he actually cites the earlier Multi II), or the 5400, it's nice to hear. I've long called the 5400 the "poor man's Imacon" (for 35mm, anyway), and my opinion hasn't changed.


- Barrett

[MISH]

I have spent about thirty years constantly striving to be a better darkroom printer, hopefully in another thirty or forty years I will get to the level I strive for. why change horses in midstream when I am having so much fun exploring the process I love. Don't want to spend money on a digital camera ... want to buy film and paper. In the thirty years I have been doing this with each move I have tried to build a better darkroom and having picked up some nice equipment over the years especially now that all my friends have gotten rid of there dark rooms, I am now compleating my bigest and best darkroom ever... can't give that up (a pro lab in ohio gave me a freestanding Durst 5X7 colorhead enlarger telling me "these things are not worth anything anymore, no one would pay money for something like this" when secretly I find myself as someone that would have payed money for something like that.
I enjoy the process, enjoy the smell, enjoy the safelights and since I have the luxury of doing this for my own growth and pleasure I will continue down this path just as i hope you are going the direction that suits you

[Dogman]

I took down my darkroom a few months ago after a year or more of inactivity. I haven't shot any film in a year or more. Even the film I shot last year has not been developed. I bought an Epson V700 in order to scan my various negative formats and I still found myself shooting everything with digital cameras and printing inkjets.

Is there a sense of regret here? You bet. I've printed in the wet darkroom for almost 40 years and looking through a Leica viewfinder has been magic for me. It's hard to give up that part of my life but digital shooting and output fits into my lifestyle more comfortably these days.

Do I think an inkjet B&W print is equal to a silver-based B&W print? No. I still believe the silver-based print has a certain look that ink does not provide. But inkjet prints are more than adequate for my purposes.

[barefoot]

Great discussion, y'all! Hearing everybody's thought processes and justifications is interesting.
I'm relatively new to (serious) photography, having purchased a D40 about 2 years ago, to replace a 5-year-old Fuji P&S.
To make a long story short, my interest developed all the way to taking a B&W darkroom class at the local art school - now I keep taking the class just so I can access the darkroom.
I'm no analog snob, I still use my D40 a lot, but nothing ever gets printed, just emailed to friends and family or uploaded to facebook or whatever. There's no denying the ease of digital for casual photography.
Wet printing, though, is a skill, a craft. I have no professional ambitions, obviously - it's just a fun and challenging learning experience. And when you stop learning, ya start dying!

[c.w.]

Unlike many of the responses, i'm not an old timer. I've had my darkroom for maybe a year, and i'm of an age where having a film camera that isn't a holga is considered a bit quaint.

I sat here for a good ten minutes trying to think of a good reason to have a darkroom. I could say that all my cameras and darkroom equipment and film and chemisty (i don't shoot a terrible lot) have cost me less than a 5D mkii or an M9 or a D3x or a Pentax 645D, but i don't think that's it.

I could say it's because film handles dynamic range better than digital, but it's not by much and i'm not sure it even matters since my prints don't have magically astounding dynamic range. So that's probably not it.

I could say it's because my black and white prints will likely last for hundreds of years, and that no one has any idea how long SD cards will last - but that discounts things like fire, and the idea that maybe someone will care enough to keep my files around.

I could say it's because i love being in the darkroom, but that would just be lying. I don't hate it, but it's not like i daydream about how i'm going to interpret negatives.

I could say it's more noble, or more true to the art, but that's just ridiculous.

I could say it's because it forces me to print things. This is the only one i can think of that actually makes some sense to me. I really don't like that everyone i know seems content to look at their pictures on the 2 inch screen on the back of the camera. But it's not like it's impossible to print digital files.

I could say that it's because things made by hand are generally considered more valuable than things made by machine - but it's a little precious of an argument for me. It can also be invalidated by the pedantic among us - i didn't actually make my film, or paper, or developer, or fixer. I also didn't mine the ore that was smelted into my camera.

For every reason i think of, i can pretty much immediately think of an argument against it. Ultimately, i'm left with no real reason to have a darkroom, everything i want to do, i could just as easily do with the cheap scanners i have or by getting myself a mid-level DSLR.

But after all that, i'm still going to go wash the prints i just finished.

[amateriat]

"I ride my bicycle to ride my bicycle. (http://fixedgearcycling.blogspot.com/2005/03/bike-zen-koan.html)"

You put it rather nicely, c.g.


- Barrett

[tbm]

My father, a life-long Leica shooter, taught me how to develope black and white film and make prints in his darkroom in Northern California when I was approximately 12 years old. I am now 56 years old and his inspiration continues to this day. In my darkroom are his self-made two wood-based safelights with flat, rectangular Kodak amber glass elements which produce an outstanding light spread while I am making prints and which he hand-constructed in 1950, three years before I was born. Today, they still mesmerize me when they gently spread the amber lighting throughout my 8x6 foot darkroom, accompanied by my wonderful Bose CD player that produces incredibly rich sounds from my classical music CDs. With the combination of these two elements, I am extremely comfortable while making prints for many hours. It is a heavenly experience. Today's chemicals do not bother me at all, and today's darkroom papers are much greater than the graded papers my father had to use in the 1950s.

[nextreme]

Darkroom work is just plain fun (and challenging). A big part of the hobby for me.
I'm even now doing RA-4 home printing.

Cheers
Steven

[Max Power]

I originally learned basic photography and darkroom fundamentals in high-school, some 25 years ago. A couple of years back, when darkroom equipment started to get ridiculously cheap, I decided to get back into B&W.

I like the fact that the principles and functions of my photography are precisely the same as they were 25 years ago when I learned them. Heck most of the tools are the same! My enlarger predates me, as do a couple of my cameras. When I shoot a roll, or soup it, or print, I take great comfort in the fact that I will have no need to replace any of my equipment in the next couple of years due to obsolescence, or bit-rot, or anything else of that nature.

Like many of you, I sit most of my day behind a computer screen, or tied to a BlackBerry. The last thing I want to do is manipulate digital images on a screen and crank them out on a printer. The darkroom is my escape from my day-to-day job where I rely on computers and technology. In B&W, the technology is very basic, the fundamentals are what you play with to manipulate the medium.

Finally, I get a rush in the shooting process. Shoot a roll, making every shot count, and then getting home and souping it to find out if what I imagined is actually on the film gives me a real kick. It is like magic.

[Morca007]

I'm acquiring darkroom equipment in fits and starts as people give it to me. As of now I've got enough to start printing BW and even Cibachrome(!) in 35mm and 120 (no 4x5 unfortunately).

My biggest obstacle is lack of space, and uncertainty in where I am going to be living next month, or next year. I'm a university student, and switch apartments/houses pretty much every year, and I don't forsee myself being in a stable housing situation for a decent amount of time after graduation either.

[Ade-oh]

Hmmmmm.

I'm primarily a writer but I do try, where possible, to take my own pictures and I also, occasionally, take pictures for other people.

When someone else is paying me I do it all digitally. When I'm taking pictures for my 'work' use, I generally use film - 35mm or 6x7 - which I scan so that I can deliver digital images to my publisher. When I'm taking pictures that I want to take - in black and white at least - I print them for myself in my wet darkroom.

Why? I enjoy the process, just like a hobby or 'artisan' potter enjoys throwing a pot on the potter's wheel, or a silk screen printer does his/her thing. There are easier ways, but they aren't as satisfying...

[MISH]

I could add that what really got me hooked on photography was watching the magic of a print coming up in the dev tray and a sttrange fasination with looking at negatives

[DabCan10]

I currently develop my own BW film in the downstairs bathroom. I do this both for my love of my old film cameras as well as the financial advantage (plus no one in town even develops true BW film anymore). I have an old enlarger that was recently given to me, but so far I haven't had the time to set it up and go and buy all the missing pieces (ie. everything but the enlarger).

I think I worry that I won't have the time to truly enjoy it and to really get good at printing. I know I'd enjoy it as I've used my Uncle's darkroom many times, unfortunately he lives too far away for regular use.

[JoeV]

My small (6'x6') garage-based darkroom has been used more in the last few years for developing and contact printing large format; although I have Besseler 4x5 and 23C enlargers, it's mostly contact prints that I like doing; the enlargers end up being used as contact printing light sources.

I recently made a portable processing box for developing paper and sheet film negatives out in the field; sometimes in the winter, when it's too inconvenient to heat up the darkroom, I use the portable box in the comfort of my kitchen. Here's a thread (http://www.f295.org/Pinholeforum/forum/Blah.pl?m-1230847394/s-all/)on the subject.

~Joe

[petermillson]

Hello all.

I still print in a darkroom because I really enjoy it and I feel connected to all the other great photographers who went before me. Sat at a computer (like now), I feel like some sort of geeky, monkey-muppet (whatever that is).

Computers are, of course, convenient but it's not much of an experience.

Happy printing.

PETE.