B/W printing - in a darkroom or a digital print with a scanner & printer?

B/W printing - in a darkroom or a digital print with a scanner & printer?

  • Darkroom

    Votes: 149 54.6%

  • Scan & view/print

    Votes: 137 50.2%
  • Total voters
    273
I am still wedded to the darkroom. The digital/inkjet perinting is a bit of a "terra incognito" to me, so for the time, its darkroom. I like the peace and quiet and the magic of watching a white piece of paper turn into an image.
It is also the one place were nobody (and I men NOBODY) can disturb you, no phone calls, no "You have mail" beeps and if someone knocks at the door - you just yell "Not now - paper in the developer" or words like that.
I am impressed with the quality of digital printing, though most bl/w printing is still below that of the Fiber Based paper, carefully printed and toned etc.
And truth be told, the music from the radio, the OC filtered light and water gurgling through washers etc will induce a zen like trance. No printer will do that.
One of these days I will try out digital printing - but so far it has not swayed me.
There is also a bit of satisfaction in holding up a perfect (when such a thing is achieved) 11x14 or 16x20 and go "I did it from start to finish and not a goddamn pixel involved".
 
Last week I ran into an old aquaintance that I had not seen for many years, In his hall were some framed prints of his kids, I took them about twenty five years ago on a Rollieflex ( alas, long gone ) and on 'Record Rapid' - sellenium toned. Back at home I looked long and hard at my recent inkjets, no contest!!, now the Durst and EL Nikkors that have stood idle for about four years, are going to have a new lease of life!.....even if there is no more 'Record Rapid', 'Brovira' or 'Portriga'!......there must be a good alternative left! ?? 🙂

Cheers Dave.
 
Just been in my 'darkroom' printing, and every time I'm reminded why I love it so much.

It's an incredibly enjoyable experience and after what I've printed this evening, I really do find scanner + printer to be a laborious task and one that still isn't always that pleasing. That said I have seen some amazing things from inkjets.

But for me, the darkroom and wet prints time and time again allow me to create the image that I perceived when shooting. With scanning it requires a fair amount of careful photoshop work as straight scans for me are often rather flat and lifeless.

Horses for courses!
 
I strongly suspect that there is another advantage to working in the traditional wet darkroom and getting your hands wet with chemicals, like fixer, that have disolved silver in them. Silver is a powerful antibiotic. Drops of silver nitrate are put in the eyes of newborn babies for that reason and colloidal silver is used both as a topical and injectable antibiotic.

When I was young I used to get boils, and cuts would almost always get infected. I got sick frequently. Sinus infections were common. I never made the connection until a few years ago when I learned about the antibiotic qualities of silver, but since I was about 18 and started to do darkroom work on a regular basis none of this has been a problem. It doesn't take much silver in your system to act as an antibiotic, and I suspect that I absorb enough through my skin from developing and printing.

Google "silver" and "antibiotic" and there is a lot of information on line about colloidal silver as an antibiotic, but silver in colloidal form just makes it eaier to use. Silver in a compound with something else can still have its effect, just as silver nitrate, a compound of silver, in a newborn's eyes manages to kill the germs.

Maybe there's money to be made in selling used hypo?
 
Last edited:
Al Kaplan said:
I strongly suspect that there is another advantage to working in the traditional wet darkroom and getting your hands wet with chemicals, like fixer, that have disolved silver in them. Silver is a powerful antibiotic. Drops of silver nitrate are put in the eyes of newborn babies for that reason and colloidal silver is used both as a topical and injectable antibiotic.

When I was young I used to get boils, and cuts would almost always get infected. I got sick frequently. Sinus infections were common. I never made the connection until a few years ago when I learned about the antibiotic qualities of silver, but since I was about 18 and started to do darkroom work on a regular basis none of this has been a problem. It doesn't take much silver in your system to act as an antibiotic, and I suspect that I absorb enough through my skin from developing and printing.

Google "silver" and "antibiotic" and there is a lot of information on line about colloidal silver as an antibiotic, but silver in colloidal form just makes it eaier to use. Silver in a compound with something else can still have its effect, just as silver nitrate, a compound of silver, in a newborn's eyes manages to kill the germs.

Maybe there's money to be made in selling used hypo?
Click to expand...

Be sure and google 'silver toxicity' as well.
 
Yes, it is toxic. Too much isn't healthy. Ask the bacteria. Then there's aspirin toxicity, but tons of it get ingested every day.
 
Last edited:
being a true fetishist I'm deeply in love with fibre paper, the skin like quality really gets me going - and if it's wrinkly, it doesn't matter, do love that old lady!

Seriously spoken: I just made a large print (1.20 x .80 meter) from a 4x5 B/W neg, it was made by the best pro lab in town on semi-fibre paper using the odd inkjet. I have to say, it does lacks the subtleness and that certain magic of the 40 x 50 cm print I did in the wet darkroom.

It might be a phenomenological problem: do you prefer something (silver) being transformed by light, or do you like a rather complex digital process to simulate that effect?
The wet process does make, in a strange and logical way sense to what photography is (or to be precise - historicaly was). Some imprint of light on a rather valuable surface. My mayor problem at the moment is more (definately being attached to the wet process) if that might be a regressive fixation😉
-michael
 
Last edited:
Using standard b/w negs you are better off with a wet process. Scanning them in doesn't give you much to work with digitally. However, if you shoot color film, scan it as a TIFF, and then convert to grayscale you get a whole wide range of elements to work with. I do both, but there is no technical advantage that I can see to scanning standard b/w film, especially if you have to work with JPEG's. I also like to make use of the wide range of papers now available at places like Adorama, such as endura and the silk finishes for digital prints. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. I would also confess that have entered a few art fairs, it was my darkroom prints that took the prize.
 
I currently use a scanner and inkjet (Epson 4490 and R1800), but I haven't been at all satisfied with the results. The printer doesn't work well in Mac 0S 10.5, and Epson has no plans to update drivers-- so I scan on one computer, then run to the other end of my apartment where the printer is connected to my old Mac running 10.4. What a hassle.
I've considered purchasing a dedicated film scanner , but as we're planning to buy a house in late 2009, the idea of selling the printer and setting up a wet darkroom has crossed my mind. Trouble is, I've never used one before. 😉
 
Last edited:
I far prefer the wet darkroom ,unfortunatly its an expensive luxury that at the moment is unaffordable.However by default Ive found that I can make a much better print by scanning into photoshop and fiddling until it looks right than ever appeared from the darkroom.If I was to transfer an approximation of the trials and myriad attempts into hard darkroom cash Id say Im saving between 20 and 50 pounds per image.Possibly one day Ill be better able to absorb those costs again but I wont go back to inferior print quality.I feel I can say that I was a pretty good printer,many years of experience,but the subtlety available in photoshop is I feel at the moment unique.
 
I also love the darkroom. I think for B&W it gives the most beautiful "looks".
I finally found a variocontrast module for my V35, so life becomes even more enjoyable in the dark.

I recently had some problems with an allergy, but changing from Ilflord multigrade dev to Ilford PQ universal solved the problem.
 
also, mpix.com does silver prints from digital sources... I can go to 12x18 on my HP 8750 that are beautiful, but for larger, or when I want to be able to say they are "traditional silver printes" there is mpix... looks quite good too.
 
Having recently started printing in a darkroom again I think it would be hard for me to go back. The magic of watching it develop in the tray is just the best feeling and, as has been said before, the knowledge that from start to finish I did everything without a computer is such an ego boost.

Now if only my wet darkroom had a clone tool and healing brush.
 
Last edited:
Even though I grew up using photoshop and am far more comfortable (and competent) with it than an enlarger, I'd prefer to spend the afternoon in the darkroom than at my computer.

I'm much more liable to spend an hour or two or three in photoshop, tweaking everything exactly as I see fit, but I'm loath to make more than a few test strips, and two prints of a single image in the darkroom. I can dodge/burn quite well in photoshop, but almost never do. I'm helpless when it comes to dodging and burning a piece of paper, but I will if need be. I hate cropping, and aim to keep as much of the original negative as possible in photoshop, but I love seeing crisp borders on a print as it comes to life.
 
Ive heard of a way to make a digital internegative by printing on to some sort of transparent film and then contact printing this to the size you want.Sounds interesting.
 
Shortly after I bought this house in 1967 I constructed a darkroom about 7 x 9 feet. One side has a counter that can hold two or three enlargers with storage underneath for paper, the other side has a large fiberglass over plywood sink that holds the film washer, print washer, and room for trays up to 16 x 20 inches with storage under it for trays and chemicals. Shelves filled with boxes of negatives and contact sheets are on a third wall. Against the fourth wass, between the sink and enlarger table, is a clothes washer which discharges into the sink. It's a handy surface for the paper cutter. And yes, there's an ashtray in there, and probably the odor of 40 years worth of pipe and cigarette smoke, but I'm convinced that the odor makes for finer grain in my negatives and gives the silver prints a depth and luminosity they would otherwise lack. The wood probably couldn't pass a drug test either. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom