yaadetgar
Member
Hi!
Well, this is my first poll, and I wanted to know what do you think.
When you're printing b/w photos, do you prefer a day at the darkroom, or a work with a scanner & a printer?
I love working in the darkroom, and I'm still doing that from time to time.
But now I mostly scan some of my films into my computer, and watch them there, or print them.
What do you think?
Yaad
Well, this is my first poll, and I wanted to know what do you think.
When you're printing b/w photos, do you prefer a day at the darkroom, or a work with a scanner & a printer?
I love working in the darkroom, and I'm still doing that from time to time.
But now I mostly scan some of my films into my computer, and watch them there, or print them.
What do you think?
Yaad
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Well, i scanned and sent to a printing centre lately, and the results are rather pleasing. They print on kodak endura photo paper using big machines, not inkjet printing.
topoxforddoc
Established
Definitely drakroom. Even my six year old son agrees. He comes to the darkroom too!
Charlie
Charlie
Mackinaw
Think Different
How about both? I find working in the darkroom very relaxing and love the give-and-take process of making a good print. I like the look of darkroom prints too.
At the same time I really like the ability to manipulate a print in Photoshop. Bringing out detail in shadows, eliminating dust specs, sharpening, etc. are all wonderful tools that hep produce some really outstanding prints. I imagine I'll be doing both for some time to come.
Jim B.
At the same time I really like the ability to manipulate a print in Photoshop. Bringing out detail in shadows, eliminating dust specs, sharpening, etc. are all wonderful tools that hep produce some really outstanding prints. I imagine I'll be doing both for some time to come.
Jim B.
FrankS
Registered User
darkroom for me
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
darkroom for me, no brainer.
MartinP
Veteran
I have to work with computers for my job - I don't want to do so in my hobby. It would also cost a heap of money for scanners, printers and ink. For some web-page things or e-mails I scan 35mm negatives occasionally, then do as little as I possibly can to the files, but my (obsolete) digital p+s rarely gets used.
I ticked "darkroom", obviously.
I ticked "darkroom", obviously.
robertdfeinman
Robert Feinman
My first generation pigment ink jet printer does a poor job on producing a neutral gray scale. I've developed a curve which helps restore the neutrality although it does make the image on the screen look odd.
Newer printers are supposed to do a much better job. My solution has been to pretty much give up on B&W over the past few years. When I do think an image needs this treatment I still shoot color negative and transform to monochrome in Photoshop.
I disguise the color balance by "toning" the image. I haven't used the darkroom for a few years.
Newer printers are supposed to do a much better job. My solution has been to pretty much give up on B&W over the past few years. When I do think an image needs this treatment I still shoot color negative and transform to monochrome in Photoshop.
I disguise the color balance by "toning" the image. I haven't used the darkroom for a few years.
R
rich815
Guest
I think both ways are best.
Tuolumne
Veteran
There's nothinhg like the magic of a digital print. Give me a good scanner and a good printer any day. My current favorite is the Epson R1800. I would never have said such things before I got that one.
/T
/T
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I would like to do some black and white wet printing but the reality of a darkroom may never eventuate. I am however a heartbeat away from buying an Epson R2400 printer which I have heard is THE printer for black and white and it does up to A3. Ink costs worry me though and a few mistakes during the learning process and getting to know the printer's capabilities ... could be costly!
There is a bulk ink system available for this printer that saves a lot of money apparently and actually cuts printing costs by 75%. It also uses the dye based chromatic inks that have become important if you want prints to last long term.
It would be interesting to see a cost comparison of the two methods over the long term.
There is a bulk ink system available for this printer that saves a lot of money apparently and actually cuts printing costs by 75%. It also uses the dye based chromatic inks that have become important if you want prints to last long term.
It would be interesting to see a cost comparison of the two methods over the long term.
R
rich815
Guest
Keith said:
Get the 3800. Once the ink that's included with the 3800 is factored in it's actually a cheaper printer after about a year. Newer technology and can print bigger too (only downside is no bulk paper feeder though).
A properly done B&W print with either of those on Crane Museo Silver Rag paper will make even the most die-hard darkroom fan take pause...
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
prefer might be the wrong word. Different mediums, it depends on what I want.
Currently mostly scan and print, out of convenience - but for some images, that just won't be the look I'm after. For those I rent or borrow a darkroom. (Still havn't convinced my GF about the feasibility of a temporary movable one in our only bathroom. )
Currently mostly scan and print, out of convenience - but for some images, that just won't be the look I'm after. For those I rent or borrow a darkroom. (Still havn't convinced my GF about the feasibility of a temporary movable one in our only bathroom.
)
NickTrop
Veteran
I prefer darkroom prints - but lately, I must confess, I've been getting good results with an inexpensive set-up:
HP 8450 inkjet printer (which has a gray cart specifically for black and white photo printing)
Epson 3170 (eyeing up that V500)
Vuescan
Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl
Adobe Lightroom
Photoshop (only sometimes to remove the occasional scratch...)
I usually shoot MF black and white 100 speed, develop the negatives in Rodinal, scan at highest res, 2 passes, and make 8inch x 8inch prints from 6cmX6cm negatives. I print with medium sharpness setting. It's fast, more convenient and though to my eye wet prints look better, I've - disheartiningly, been more positive comments from my injet prints : (
One thing that's a big plus of inkjet over wet prints is prefect exposures without guesswork or "settling" for "good enough" exposure-wise after several messed up attempts.
Ultimately, my take is if you "nail" a wet print, yeah it's better than an inkjet print.
But, scan/inkjet drives the considerable "trial and error" element out of the process and gives a great deal more control. The "max" of quality isn't equal to a wet print, but your results will be more consistent and the "quality of your quantity" will improve overall (if that makes sense). You'll get better and more consistent results overall over a volume of prints relative to wet process (caveat - wet process at my current skill-level and set-up) but the max quality of a print - one that you "nail" in wet process is slightly inferior with digital.
It pains me to admit this.
My take - TMMV.
|
HP 8450 inkjet printer (which has a gray cart specifically for black and white photo printing)
Epson 3170 (eyeing up that V500)
Vuescan
Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl
Adobe Lightroom
Photoshop (only sometimes to remove the occasional scratch...)
I usually shoot MF black and white 100 speed, develop the negatives in Rodinal, scan at highest res, 2 passes, and make 8inch x 8inch prints from 6cmX6cm negatives. I print with medium sharpness setting. It's fast, more convenient and though to my eye wet prints look better, I've - disheartiningly, been more positive comments from my injet prints : (
One thing that's a big plus of inkjet over wet prints is prefect exposures without guesswork or "settling" for "good enough" exposure-wise after several messed up attempts.
Ultimately, my take is if you "nail" a wet print, yeah it's better than an inkjet print.
But, scan/inkjet drives the considerable "trial and error" element out of the process and gives a great deal more control. The "max" of quality isn't equal to a wet print, but your results will be more consistent and the "quality of your quantity" will improve overall (if that makes sense). You'll get better and more consistent results overall over a volume of prints relative to wet process (caveat - wet process at my current skill-level and set-up) but the max quality of a print - one that you "nail" in wet process is slightly inferior with digital.
It pains me to admit this.
My take - TMMV.
|
Last edited:
pellothed1
Member
Before deciding which would work best for me, outsourcing everything, printing my personal photography myself, and choosing between ink and wet printing, I did a comparison between the available inkjets at the time and narrowed it down to the Epson 4800 and Canon IPF 5000. After having quite a few prints of my own work made on both printers, on different media types, I chose the Canon over the Epson and over my prints I'd made in a traditional darkroom from the same negs. I'd say I'm pretty experienced in all types of digital printing, and this Canon is amazing for black and white, the best I've seen. They also recently replaced the 5000 with the 5100 due to a black/grey ink reformulation that is supposed to have improved it even further. Unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to see any of my work printed on one.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Surprise surprise ... nearly two to one for digital printing. All the darkroom curmudgeons must be occupied elsewhere today!
moonwrack
Member
Just use both methods as appropriate. Remember, however, that a hand-made, silver-based print produced in a conventional darkroom is unique and personal to the photographer in a way that can never be achieved with digital. Ideal as prints for framing or as gifts to friends.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Keith said:Surprise surprise ... nearly two to one for digital printing. All the darkroom curmudgeons must be occupied elsewhere today!
Not really a surprise considering the logistics of setting up a darkroom.
However, once it is set up, you'll be good to go for decades. By this I mean, the technology doesn't change much. There are no worries about updating software, ink cartridges being superseded by newer designs or your printer head becoming clogged.
My darkroom set up is on home-built carts, which serve as tables and allow for storage underneath. I have two compact Durst enlargers and use Nova slot processors for development. It all rolls out of the way into the back of my walk-in closet space when not in use.
I'm lucky enough to have a walk-in closet that adjoins a bathroom with no windows.
Back to the logistics - no matter how large that you think your desk top scanner and printer are - electronic printing still requires less space. There is less fuss about temperature and you have the option of push button repeatability.
Still, it is nice to be able to print directly through the negative in one operation, especially with medium format negs.
With an enlarger - the final print is your scan. I can crank out a print to the rinse tank every three minutes. If I use FB paper - the rinse process becomes a bottle neck. With RC paper - the rinse process is about 4 minutes.
Last edited:
feenej
Well-known
I prefer darkroom prints, but if my photo needs to be retouched, or is difficult to print in the darkroom for some reason, it's easier to print electronically.
robert blu
quiet photographer
my rcp:
xp2 or provia 100 F
nikon scan 5000 ed
hp 9180 B
hartman baryt matt paper (when quality is a must) or other (when cost has priority)
results very satisying. learning curve is necessary, as it was in the darkroom.
onlt note that in case of B&W is not possible to make glossy print (at least I'm not able yet...) in this case I suggest to follow Pherdinand suggestion: Kodak Endura paper is amazing...
rob
xp2 or provia 100 F
nikon scan 5000 ed
hp 9180 B
hartman baryt matt paper (when quality is a must) or other (when cost has priority)
results very satisying. learning curve is necessary, as it was in the darkroom.
onlt note that in case of B&W is not possible to make glossy print (at least I'm not able yet...) in this case I suggest to follow Pherdinand suggestion: Kodak Endura paper is amazing...
rob