How many of you print your own prints? Do you use traditional methods with enlarger or have converted to digital? I hear that B&W can still only be done properly with chemicals and real photo paper. What are your thougts on this?
How many people print wet rather than digital?
- Thread starter MP Guy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 43
- Views 3K
R
rpsawin
Guest
Jorge,
I do both and find that my preference is to use a darkroom. I've yet to see a printer, under $1,000, that can come close to matching a print out of a darkroom. Again, I'm speaking about B&W. I saw some truly stunning prints from a Canon printer this last weekend...~$1,900. That will buy me alot of darkroom time and supplies.
Of course I'm being hyper-critical of my work and I have a very specific look/feel I'm trying to acheive. For less critical prints I think digital processing is great...works fine. Again, be prepared to spend a few bucks on ink.
Bob
I do both and find that my preference is to use a darkroom. I've yet to see a printer, under $1,000, that can come close to matching a print out of a darkroom. Again, I'm speaking about B&W. I saw some truly stunning prints from a Canon printer this last weekend...~$1,900. That will buy me alot of darkroom time and supplies.
Of course I'm being hyper-critical of my work and I have a very specific look/feel I'm trying to acheive. For less critical prints I think digital processing is great...works fine. Again, be prepared to spend a few bucks on ink.
Bob
I m considering the epson 4000. however, it takes 8 ink cartridges in 2 sizes. The large size is $120.00 per cartridge the small is 70.00 per crtridge. That cn cost 960.00 to fil up with ink.
S
saldimarcojr
Guest
For black & white prints, I prefer the traditional wet process. I have yet to see a really quality computer generated exhibition print. The same holds for color work, except when the output is on a traditional color printing paper and chemically processed.
Happy Snaps, Sal
Happy Snaps, Sal
T
That Guy
Guest
I wish I had a darkroom. 🙁 I'm planning for a spot in the basement. Got plumbing, electricity and a floor drain in a good spot. But so far I've only been planning for it. 🙄 I haven't been in a darkroom since high school. And I really miss it. 🙁
oftheherd
Veteran
I no longer have an enlarger. It would be kind of inconvenient to put one in the laundry room now, even thought when the house was built I made sure there was a sink there to use as a darkroom sink.
My current plans are to develop my b/w film at home, then scan it with an Epson 3200 I am trying to buy. I always enjoyed working in a wet darkroom though. Lots of fun to go with the frustration. I am hoping to enjoy the digital half as well. I also just purchased a Unicolor Uniroller and a couple of tanks so 8x10 prints can be wet.
My current plans are to develop my b/w film at home, then scan it with an Epson 3200 I am trying to buy. I always enjoyed working in a wet darkroom though. Lots of fun to go with the frustration. I am hoping to enjoy the digital half as well. I also just purchased a Unicolor Uniroller and a couple of tanks so 8x10 prints can be wet.
fcg
Member
yes my friend suggested digital solutions at6000+ which would make good prints.
but im not persuaded.
darkroom lenses and eq are at the shows; and are CHEAP; i just got a 50/2.8 nikkor mint inthe plastic case. enlarging lense for 25$
fcg
but im not persuaded.
darkroom lenses and eq are at the shows; and are CHEAP; i just got a 50/2.8 nikkor mint inthe plastic case. enlarging lense for 25$
fcg
GeneW
Veteran
I guess I'm the contrarian. I still have my old darkroom equipment in my basement storage, and I intend to leave it there 🙂
I would never argue that I can get digital prints quite as good as what I can get from a wet darkroom. I can, however, come close, and with much less bother. For me, that's good enough. I'm not hanging any prints in art galleries anyway. I shoot just for the fun of it and I enjoy looking at photos on my computer monitor.
For me, life's too short to get back into the darkroom business...
Gene
I would never argue that I can get digital prints quite as good as what I can get from a wet darkroom. I can, however, come close, and with much less bother. For me, that's good enough. I'm not hanging any prints in art galleries anyway. I shoot just for the fun of it and I enjoy looking at photos on my computer monitor.
For me, life's too short to get back into the darkroom business...
Gene
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Well-made silver gelatin prints are much more durable.
gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll
Churchilllaan, Amsterdam 2022
gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll
Churchilllaan, Amsterdam 2022
Last edited:
Freakscene
Obscure member
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
This thread is 21 years old so it's quite durable as well!
pixelated
Established
I have seen some really stunning B&W inkjet prints.
But nothing beats the magic of watching an image form when you slip a sheet of photographic paper into the developer.
But nothing beats the magic of watching an image form when you slip a sheet of photographic paper into the developer.
chuckroast
Well-known
I have never seen a digital output medium that compares to a well executed silver print. The look simply doesn't compare.
The Lambda printing system is comparable I am told, because it is essentially analog production onto silver paper of a digital source file. But these are very expensive and thin on the ground
Dogman
Veteran
This could turn out to be the next political topic thread. Pass the popcorn.
😉
.............................
😉
.............................
38Deardorff
Well-known
Still in the dark. Beseler MXT (4x5) with a Zone VI VC head and a Durst 138 (5x7").
.....no digital camera or printing & no intention of changing horses in the future.
I have to say I've also seen some impeccable digital prints. There was a Wm Clift exhibition at the New Mexico Museum of Modern Art in Santa Fe with beautiful LF prints, a few of which were digital...& impossible to tell apart without reading the title cards.
This week i got a couple of BW prints made from a scan from a Kodachrome. Royce Howland is a masterful printer in Calgary....who uses Jon Cone's inksets for his BW work. He also showed me a number of matched prints ...silver gelatin prints by Paul Stack, & his digital matches. So yes impeccable prints from either can be made.
.....no digital camera or printing & no intention of changing horses in the future.
I have to say I've also seen some impeccable digital prints. There was a Wm Clift exhibition at the New Mexico Museum of Modern Art in Santa Fe with beautiful LF prints, a few of which were digital...& impossible to tell apart without reading the title cards.
This week i got a couple of BW prints made from a scan from a Kodachrome. Royce Howland is a masterful printer in Calgary....who uses Jon Cone's inksets for his BW work. He also showed me a number of matched prints ...silver gelatin prints by Paul Stack, & his digital matches. So yes impeccable prints from either can be made.
Last edited:
Harry the K
Well-known
It´s durable because it was locked away from daylight after the first couple posts.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
This thread is older than one of my nephews. 🤣
By 2004, I had been printing with inkjet printers for ten years. The prints up to that point were "decent" but not spectacular, nor particularly long lived since neither the papers nor the old dye-based inks were really up to snuff yet. My prints were good, because I'm better at image processing (even with the crude tools of 2003) than I ever was at darkroom printing technique, but the media wasn't really up to snuff yet nor archival quality. Good inks were available for various printers, and usually destroyed the printer heads eventually, and cost a lot. Papers still left a lot to be desired.
By 2005, Epson had released their pigment-based inks and the first printers that used them. Epson, Hahnemühle, Somerset and others followed up by releasing compatible archival papers in a variety of tones and surfaces. I bought an Epson R2400 printer and started making prints for exhibition. I made a test print (with a full spectrum of grayscale tones and details on a smooth matte surface) ... one went in a frame on my wall, the other in an archival sleeve in a folio cover. I just compared them again: virtually no change between them still. Not bad for a 20 year old print that's been hanging where the sun can hit it for a few minutes at both ends of the day.
A dozen years later, I gave my R2400 to a friend that needed a printer desperately and bought myself an Epson P600. Even better print quality, same archival inks and papers.
Over the years, I sold about 3000 prints I have printed with these two printers and have received many happy notes marveling at the technical quality. I have printed all my photo holiday cards with them since I got the R2400 in 2004, and was stunned to discover that one of my friends had mounted and framed every card I ever sent them in their office ... and 20 years on, even the oldest are in perfect condition.
It's now 2025. I haven't done any comparisons of prints between wet lab and inkjet since 1995 ... I don't have a wet lab for printing at all anymore. It's irrelevant: what I produce with my current printing setup is good enough. 🙂
G
By 2004, I had been printing with inkjet printers for ten years. The prints up to that point were "decent" but not spectacular, nor particularly long lived since neither the papers nor the old dye-based inks were really up to snuff yet. My prints were good, because I'm better at image processing (even with the crude tools of 2003) than I ever was at darkroom printing technique, but the media wasn't really up to snuff yet nor archival quality. Good inks were available for various printers, and usually destroyed the printer heads eventually, and cost a lot. Papers still left a lot to be desired.
By 2005, Epson had released their pigment-based inks and the first printers that used them. Epson, Hahnemühle, Somerset and others followed up by releasing compatible archival papers in a variety of tones and surfaces. I bought an Epson R2400 printer and started making prints for exhibition. I made a test print (with a full spectrum of grayscale tones and details on a smooth matte surface) ... one went in a frame on my wall, the other in an archival sleeve in a folio cover. I just compared them again: virtually no change between them still. Not bad for a 20 year old print that's been hanging where the sun can hit it for a few minutes at both ends of the day.
A dozen years later, I gave my R2400 to a friend that needed a printer desperately and bought myself an Epson P600. Even better print quality, same archival inks and papers.
Over the years, I sold about 3000 prints I have printed with these two printers and have received many happy notes marveling at the technical quality. I have printed all my photo holiday cards with them since I got the R2400 in 2004, and was stunned to discover that one of my friends had mounted and framed every card I ever sent them in their office ... and 20 years on, even the oldest are in perfect condition.
It's now 2025. I haven't done any comparisons of prints between wet lab and inkjet since 1995 ... I don't have a wet lab for printing at all anymore. It's irrelevant: what I produce with my current printing setup is good enough. 🙂
G
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I was already making really good color and b/w with an Epson R2400 20 years ago with stock ink and paper. There were expensive b/w artisan inks available but the 11x14 prints were good enough to my eyes and as a reference I did print in a wet darkroom with Ilford and Kodak fiber paper. I can imagine now 2 decades later how much better technology has improved. At the moment I don’t need hard copies of my photography and from time to time have an itch to find a darkroom but then remember hours and hours spotting the prints. The horror.
skopar steve
Well-known
I still use my enlarger for b&w prints. Sometimes I do fiber prints for others. It keeps me in practice. Printing a beautiful b&w fiber print in the darkroom is very rewarding. I stopped wet printing color after the demise of cibachrome. Twenty years ago I tried inkjet printing but found it hard to keep the nozzles clean without pissing thru a lot of expensive ink. I simply did not print enough color work to make it worth while. Color prints get sent out for the few color prints I want.
chuckroast
Well-known
When I last looked at serious color printers over a decade ago, the cost of ink and paper consumables was prohibitive. With silver paper prices rising, that may no longer be true.
My neighbourhood friendly AI estimates a full ink changeout cost to be in the general area of $400US delivering 200-ish 8x10 colour prints, or $2/print. That isn't miles away from Fomabrom VC at nearly the same price.
Then again ... it ain't silver 😉
Similar threads
