Darkroom:digital or otherwise ?

A quick question ... I know there is alot of advocacy on the
quality of Film Vs Digital. I have a digital camera my self, and I
am very happy. My friend has a film setup and he is quite happy. We
often get in to friendly arguments about the pro and cons. I was
supprised today about an admission.

He has shot alot of film and is about to create a professional
portfolio. He has done alot of darkroom work, but for the sake of
his portfolio, he feels that printing from film is not an option.

In conversation he said that it's just too much work, let alone
putting borders in the darkroom and other things that are so simple
in photoshop.

My question to the experts in the group ... Has the darkroom lost
the race compaired to the digital darkroom, or does it have an edge
in any way ?

Giorgis

 

Over the last several years I have talked to and heard
from dozens of professional photographers who have
put away their "wet" darkrooms in favor of digital (mostly
using large-format Epsons and Rolands.) I've never heard
one report of one of these going back or expressing regret
for the move.

Speaking for myself from personal experience, though I
am not a pro. My wet darkroom experience is from many
years ago. Digital beats it hands down, at least for color.

For BW, you have to work harder, but it can still be done,
and done well.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 

They are both tools. Today they are both good tools. It is not really
possible to say one is better than the other since digital has come a long
way.

So the photographer needs to know and pick the tool that is right for
them and the job.

So just as in the past before digital, I would need to choose between
4x5, 2¼ or 35mm to take the image (digital is added to that list now) I also
needed to decide if I wanted to do the darkroom work myself or have someone
else do it, now I add digital to the mix.

For absolute best control and quality, today I would choose 4x5 and a
wet darkroom, if the subject allowed it. Most of the time I am not willing
to do all that work so I compromise. Note, compromise is NOT a dirty word.

 

The salesman at a fairly large camera store I go to occasionally states
that they have not sold a new enlarger in over 4 years, and they have now
stopped buying used enlargers except as trade-ins on their stock. They've
had people moving up from cheap enlargers to better ones - but USED better
ones. Very few people are starting to do any chemical darkroom work unless
they have access to a pre-existing darkroom.
I went digital about 6-7 years ago because of growing allergies to the
chems. I'm very glad now that I got a head start on everyone. I sold my
enlarger for exactly what I paid for it -- Since I put together darkrooms by
buying and selling used equipment I probably made a profit overall. This
would not be possible today.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

 

Did your fingernails turn brown like mine did?

 

I don't deny they are both tools. I am wondering in a wet darkroom (a
term a learned here, showing my ignorance) what are the advantages ?

You can argue about resolution in digital Vs Film, about dynamic range,
but from what I understand both film and digital cannot put all the info
on print. As a result, the printing process is a subset of the
capabilities of the image acquisition. At then end of the day it seems
there is a clear lead in the digital darkroom.

Giorgis

 

Hi,

Seemed almost inevitable. I never had a darkroom, first because I did not have
the money or space and later because I did not have time.
When photogrphy and computers came together I felt very happy. First because I
was ahead in computer knowledge and then because I could use the digital
darkroom.

Actually, even though I am retired now, I am constantly looking forward at
what technology will bring.
Rosita

 

At the college where I work, I find many students who've been sitting in front
of the PC for days trying to output images with true colour fidelity on the
epson 7600's saying fckt, and heading for the RA4. I'm in the same boat. I had
a 50x60 image needed quickly - the PC work required was complicated .. 3 test
strips, 30 minutes and there I was with 2 large glossy RA4 prints. Much easier


k

 

So, are you the teacher? What's the problem?

I mean, getting good color isn't entirely trivial, but
someone's got to show these poor blokes how to
do it. Lots of folks who "never went to school" are
making fine prints with their Epsons and Canons.

As you probably know, there is most definitely a gamut
issue with inkjets -- across the board -- and especially so
for the 7x00 and 9x00 Epson printers with their various
generations of pigment inks. I wonder if your students
might be better served by dye ink printers.

But CMYK (and CMYKcm) inkjet printers simply can't reach
certain parts of the color spectrum -- for example, deep
dazzling pinks, or violet. You can fiddle with the RGB color
knobs till the cows come home, but it's damned near
impossible to get a deep, saturated violet from an inkjet print.

Inkjets can beat SWOP gamut hands-down, but most likely
can still be beat for gamut by "wet" prints. Fortunately, this
issue isn't a killer; these tones that are way-out-of-gamut
don't appear all that often the landscape photos I do.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 

No - I had respiratory problems from the hypo and a rash -- the oozy, bleedy
kind, from the developers. If I'm careful and don't do it too often (and
never without rubber gloves) I can process a roll or two of B/W film - but
that's it - and no open trays at all.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

 

If you don't take the time to learn how to get good colour out of a digital
set-up you will get lousy colour. I know an awful; lot of people who never
made a single chemical colour print that looked any good either. It takes
work and practice and knowledge - especially knowledge of your system - like
any other skill.
My average colour print is done with one test print and adjustments to the
file in the form of "Adjustment Layers". For 8x10s that takes about 12
minutes to print them both and my printer is practically an antique. If I'm
doing a series that was shot under the same lighting conditions I seldom
have to do any test prints after the first.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

 

I agree that time is needed to know your workflow.

I think the single most important issue with a digital darkroom is monitor
calibration and sadly I think it is one that is most often overlooked or has
copped the "that'll do" approach.

I have spent a lot of time getting mine right, as printing to a Lambda,
D-Lab or Pegasus at a lab does not give the option of a test print.
Naturally I have the option to re-print any that are no good, but getting it
"right on screen-right in print" is the better way to go.

Actually, perhaps we should had "profiles" to that "most important" list
also.... grossly miss-understood the poor things :-(

 

should ADD "profiles"

........Sorry for the typo :-(

 

Its the bloody profiles, that I can't get my head around. Tried a number of
sites but still looking for the "dummies" guide. Any suggestions? (Keep it
clean, the kids use my machine).

regards

Don

 

a portfolio with photoshop borders... are you serious?

Getting away from a mouse and CRT is enough for me but to answer your
question more completely, for a colour digital workflow (why's it called a
"darkroom" anyway?) it is in a different league to colour wet processing.
There were very few people capable of quality work when it was somewhat
popular, and I doubt those that claim they could print colour, actually
could. Alternatively, who got prints from a lab and got the image
reprinted several times to get it 'right'? Now you can do all that to your
own satisfaction.

For hobbiest B&W work I think it's a different scenario. Regardless of the
final output, some people (this includes me) actually like processing film
and spending time in the darkroom printing. For some reason, the digiworld
can't come to grips with that aspect.

Cheers, Nige

 

The result on the print is not the same. Notice I don't say one is
better, but they are not the same. Much the say as my opinion of apple and
cherry pie. I love both, but they are not the same.

Again we have two tools. Many people are choosing digital. Digital is
more convenient and easier to learn and even has some tricks not available
in the wet darkroom. But I still see a difference in the result.

For NOW I see the traditional darkroom as having an edge in some cases.
I don't know if this will continue.

I use both, but most of my work now is not wet. That choice is
convenience. That may change, either way in the future.

I agree, depending on how you define "clear lead." It is clear more
people are going digital, but it is not clear if this is because of quality
choice or convenience choice. I tend to believe it is do to the practical
decisions made my many knowledgable talented photographers after due
consideration of all the factors for the work they are doing.

 

No easy answer here.

I spent years doing "conventional" Band W printing, I finally
converted to digital. I doubt if I will ever go back---for one
reason: convenience. I can start a project and put it away at a
moments notice. No way to do that in a darkroom.

My latest kick is panoramas---stiching together 5-8 shots in the
computer. I would not even know how to do that in a darkroom.

I suspect that the quality of inkjet may never be up to the silver
print, but it is very close. If the inkjet print doen not meet your
needs, there are commercial options.

-Mark

 

I have embraced digital, but darkroom work provides a joy that digital
cannot. So IMHO digital wins for practicality. I only do B&W film from a
medium format camera, but without it I would have a void in my life.

Tim

--

"The strongest human instinct is to impart information,
and the second strongest is to resist it."

Kenneth Graham

 

I agree that time is needed to know your workflow.

then there's the issue of recallibrating for colour changes as the tube heats
and changes, and ambient lighting too, unless it's controlled :-( LCD's don't
offer much hope due to the viewing angle issues and the frequently crossed
curves.

I guess I see a major stumbling block in the following comparison of processes:

RA4 from neg.
variables:
colour chemistry.
paper stock.
any variation in colour correction is delt with by adjusting the filtration
until it's right, so there's three ways to stuff things up.

Digital from neg:
calibrate scanner
calibrate scanner for film stock.
calibrate monitor for video card and monitor.
scan
adjust file on monitor
adjust in printer interface for paper stock
adjust in printer interface for ink stock
send to print

I can see many, many ways to cock this up - fine if you have your own dedicated
machine that you calibrate regularly (not relying on those goddam 'profiles) but
one thing goes out of whack and there's a lot of problem solving to rectify
things.

A great project is to whip off a dmaned fine RA4 print and then try to replicate
it digitally. Not an easy task by any measure.. And I don't mean a print that
looks good, or one which is _mostly_ right apart from the purple flower which
now looks a funky blue, but I mean an exact copy. Damned hard..

Ah! wet process

you really mean to say you'd trust some bloke somewhere on the other side of the
world with different inks and different paper to you, not to mention a different
video card and monitor to create a profile that's better than one you can
make???

really?

k

 

I spent years doing "conventional" Band W printing, I finally

that bit I too like

been there, done that, got the five enlargers to prove it :-(

...but before we get off this point, have you ever seen Bob Carlos Clarke's work?
beeeooootiful composite stuff using multiple negs and multiple enlarger setups.
Bloody hard work - and he stood alone in being one of the few people who could
do what any spotty kid with a PC can do in a minute

hang on, did I just shoot myself? ;-)

k