Bill Pierce
Well-known
When film was king, if you sent your film to a drugstore, you accepted the print you got back. It was sort of the equivalent of the unaltered jpg. It preserved a lot of memories and made a lot of people happy.
But, as expensive as a good wet darkroom was, especially if you had a good enlarger with several lenses, that was the route many photographers chose even if they could turn their work over to a good commercial lab or, for editorial photographers, their publication’s darkroom. For many, photography meant both taking the picture and printing the picture. So many variations were possible in the print, the dark print, the high key print, the harsh print, the print that highlighted the important and subdued the unessential - but only one of those prints was a reflection of the way the photographer saw or felt about the subject.
Perhaps because we can see an acceptable image almost immediately after taking a digital picture, many folks accept that image as “their print.” Actually, I think of it as the camera’s print, and I don’t think you should take orders from your camera. Pretty soon it will start demanding a credit line.
The digital darkroom is a lot cheaper than the wet one. Everyone has a computer. Many folks already have printers that will do a good job with photos. And you don’t have to black out the windows in the spare room and lose it to all other purposes outside of darkroom. For me, not only taking the picture but printing the picture, whether it be the darkroom print, the inkjet print or just the image on a computer screen, go hand in hand. There are just too many important choices in both pushing the button and making MY print.
Your thoughts?
But, as expensive as a good wet darkroom was, especially if you had a good enlarger with several lenses, that was the route many photographers chose even if they could turn their work over to a good commercial lab or, for editorial photographers, their publication’s darkroom. For many, photography meant both taking the picture and printing the picture. So many variations were possible in the print, the dark print, the high key print, the harsh print, the print that highlighted the important and subdued the unessential - but only one of those prints was a reflection of the way the photographer saw or felt about the subject.
Perhaps because we can see an acceptable image almost immediately after taking a digital picture, many folks accept that image as “their print.” Actually, I think of it as the camera’s print, and I don’t think you should take orders from your camera. Pretty soon it will start demanding a credit line.
The digital darkroom is a lot cheaper than the wet one. Everyone has a computer. Many folks already have printers that will do a good job with photos. And you don’t have to black out the windows in the spare room and lose it to all other purposes outside of darkroom. For me, not only taking the picture but printing the picture, whether it be the darkroom print, the inkjet print or just the image on a computer screen, go hand in hand. There are just too many important choices in both pushing the button and making MY print.
Your thoughts?
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Before being able to develop my own film and prints I would have been happy with what the local Fotomat would return to us...
Later, I was okay with the prints I made but something was always not just right...later again I figured out what that was...I was still getting a cropped image...I was using a printing easel with predetermined print sizes...when using cameras with 100% view finders I would crop my image in the camera...when I started printing full frame images I was so much more satisfied with the outcome...
Maybe it all comes down to wanting full control over my image but I don't see that as a bad thing...I was there when the picture was taken, I know what the colors or tones were like and I know how I want it cropped...I don't want someone else doing this for me...besides I love the darkroom...
Later, I was okay with the prints I made but something was always not just right...later again I figured out what that was...I was still getting a cropped image...I was using a printing easel with predetermined print sizes...when using cameras with 100% view finders I would crop my image in the camera...when I started printing full frame images I was so much more satisfied with the outcome...
Maybe it all comes down to wanting full control over my image but I don't see that as a bad thing...I was there when the picture was taken, I know what the colors or tones were like and I know how I want it cropped...I don't want someone else doing this for me...besides I love the darkroom...
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
One of the reasons I lost interest in photography for a good while was my inability to get decent prints of decent size at reasonable expense from my film shots. To get a decent larger-size colour print, cropped the way I wanted and printed with reasonable (to my eye) quality usually took multiple expensive iterations even from so-called professional labs. Black and white had it's own difficulties once I lost access to a darkroom. So I more-or-less gave up, beyond family and travel snaps, until digital came along.
...Mike
...Mike
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have no problem to get my digital images to be printed at Costco.
At any size and quality my files provides.
Honestly, having your own printer is expensive and waste of time.
Computers and printers which needs constant upgrade are cheaper what enlarger and the rest available for free and it has to be accrued only once?
Also I can't afford paper for printers, if it isn't Walmart crap. While darkroom paper is next to free where I'm.
Not to mention what fun in the darkroom is priceless.
I have basement with 10 feet long counter-top and sink.
It is next to my turntables and amplifier with speakers and all of it in the finished room. I have absolutely no needs for separate darkroom.
At any size and quality my files provides.
Honestly, having your own printer is expensive and waste of time.
Computers and printers which needs constant upgrade are cheaper what enlarger and the rest available for free and it has to be accrued only once?
Also I can't afford paper for printers, if it isn't Walmart crap. While darkroom paper is next to free where I'm.
Not to mention what fun in the darkroom is priceless.
I have basement with 10 feet long counter-top and sink.
It is next to my turntables and amplifier with speakers and all of it in the finished room. I have absolutely no needs for separate darkroom.
CMur12
Veteran
I got my first "serious" camera, a demo-model Yashica TL Super SLR, in 1972 when I was a student. My aspiration was B&W photography, but I didn't have access to a darkroom. I sent film to a local lab and the resulting prints were pretty good, all things considered, but I knew that I had very limited control over the final product.
That being the case, I decided to shoot positive/transparency/slide film as the only way to actually see what I had accomplished in-camera.
I'm still shooting film, though I'm now contemplating developing B&W negs at home and scanning them. I still tend to think of photography as an in-camera process, and when I contemplate going digital, I'm interested in in-camera functions, such as white-balance control and such. I much prefer doing it this way, at least in concept, to doing it in post-processing.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to work up any enthusiasm for processing photos on a computer.
- Murray
That being the case, I decided to shoot positive/transparency/slide film as the only way to actually see what I had accomplished in-camera.
I'm still shooting film, though I'm now contemplating developing B&W negs at home and scanning them. I still tend to think of photography as an in-camera process, and when I contemplate going digital, I'm interested in in-camera functions, such as white-balance control and such. I much prefer doing it this way, at least in concept, to doing it in post-processing.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to work up any enthusiasm for processing photos on a computer.
- Murray
charjohncarter
Veteran
Sorry, there is nothing like a silver gel print (period)(even drugstore). But in the 21st Siglo; I see your point.
Ranchu
Veteran
I get RA4 (?) machine prints from the same place that processes my film. I really don't like inkjet prints, and it's like throwing money down a hole they're so expensive.
dasuess
Nikon Freak
I don't think I've had a drugstore print since the very early 1970's. Since then I've either done silver darkroom prints or, more recently, inkjet prints. No one can print my images better than I can.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Had a darkroom for a number of years and I also used one at work.
Can`t say that I really cared for the process though.
Ilford now print my stuff and do a far better than I ever could.
There are a number of bespoke printing services in the UK.
Can`t say that I really cared for the process though.
Ilford now print my stuff and do a far better than I ever could.
There are a number of bespoke printing services in the UK.
thegman
Veteran
I did a little development on my own, but quite frankly, my fingers don't have the delicate touch required to load a reel (4x5 was OK, but even then, I found it a pain), and my quick-to-anger constitution does not suit hunching over a sweaty changing bag.
I've always got good results from labs, never really had them mess up, and I'm probably liking more and more the idea of just sending off a film, getting prints, and that's that. If I've got scans, I might alter them a little, straighten a horizon maybe, tweak the colours, sharpen a little if required.
I've always got good results from labs, never really had them mess up, and I'm probably liking more and more the idea of just sending off a film, getting prints, and that's that. If I've got scans, I might alter them a little, straighten a horizon maybe, tweak the colours, sharpen a little if required.
RichL
Well-known
I actually break it into two parts.
If I'm on a walk and see a "Kodak Photo Spot" (so to speak) I will tweak the print till it is as I want to remember it. When taking snapshops at say, a picnic, then it will stay as the lab prints it unless something is drastically wrong. The first example is a reproduction of a scene I want to see again while the second is simply a memory jogger of an event I want to remember.
If I'm on a walk and see a "Kodak Photo Spot" (so to speak) I will tweak the print till it is as I want to remember it. When taking snapshops at say, a picnic, then it will stay as the lab prints it unless something is drastically wrong. The first example is a reproduction of a scene I want to see again while the second is simply a memory jogger of an event I want to remember.
Michael Markey
Veteran
John Bragg
Well-known
At the beginning of my photographic journey, I shot transparencies and enjoyed them. I then changed to Black and white and was soon developing and printing my own. These days, I have no room for a darkroom, but instead I develop and scan. I do yearn for a real darkroom again, but modern ways and technologies ensure that I can still shoot the film that I love and enjoy sharing the output. I do print inkjets as well and they are of amazingly good quality. This Hybrid workflow seems to be the best of both worlds and I can also use my beloved film cameras without having to worry.
When I used film, I used a proper darkroom and spent the time to make nice prints in B&W and color. With digital, it is the same... proper computer, software, and printer (and I spend the time processing each photo). And now I can get books self-published easy. Whatever it takes to get what you want from your photography.
bence8810
Well-known
I just got the taste of the darkroom work this January and since I am spending more and more time printing. Since I managed to turn a room into a hybrid darkroom, I spend about 7-10 hours a week under the red illumination. Having a blast!
Things go slow but to me there's nothing more satisfying then seeing a print come out of the fixer just the way I wanted it to be (which I must admit is rare)
But what's above said is true. Whatever works for an individual - as long as it's fun - it's all good.
I just seem to be having a high silver blood content and come alive in the dark.
Ben
Things go slow but to me there's nothing more satisfying then seeing a print come out of the fixer just the way I wanted it to be (which I must admit is rare)
But what's above said is true. Whatever works for an individual - as long as it's fun - it's all good.
I just seem to be having a high silver blood content and come alive in the dark.
Ben
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
Never occurred to me to have prints made at a drugstore, that was something my mom did.
Now, I "never" print.
Now, I "never" print.
leicapixie
Well-known
I always develop my own BW films.
In the 60's as I began doing Professional work, i tried "Pro" labs.
The only films that have faded are those done at such labs..
Thankfully only a few rolls.
Color a totally different problem.
There was Kodak Processing in Johannesburg, South Africa.
It was good but "Kodak" would never mount extra frames..
You paid for 36, you got 36 mounted.
Their Ektachrome line a disaster.(for me).
A batch of 9 x120 rolls on a pro job were ruined.
Kodak only admitted one replacement roll, as compensation..
Kodak screwed other rolls but harder to prove..
Agfa was the worst.Prints faded to red, films looked like pre-war.
Pro labs were all pretty terrible until one lab opened.
I had a happy relationship with them.
Printing my BW became the norm.
Today I still do my own BW films.
I scan for internet but find the quality, the look, sickening.
I am about to restart my Wet Darkroom, for a few prints.
In the 60's as I began doing Professional work, i tried "Pro" labs.
The only films that have faded are those done at such labs..
Thankfully only a few rolls.
Color a totally different problem.
There was Kodak Processing in Johannesburg, South Africa.
It was good but "Kodak" would never mount extra frames..
You paid for 36, you got 36 mounted.
Their Ektachrome line a disaster.(for me).
A batch of 9 x120 rolls on a pro job were ruined.
Kodak only admitted one replacement roll, as compensation..
Kodak screwed other rolls but harder to prove..
Agfa was the worst.Prints faded to red, films looked like pre-war.
Pro labs were all pretty terrible until one lab opened.
I had a happy relationship with them.
Printing my BW became the norm.
Today I still do my own BW films.
I scan for internet but find the quality, the look, sickening.
I am about to restart my Wet Darkroom, for a few prints.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
I have had prints hanging under a 8x5 foot skylight for 15 years from Duggal in NYC, no sign of fading.
Which "pro" labs did you use? Sounds more like you were using consumer labs like those run by Kodak, for the general public?
robert blu
quiet photographer
I love inkjet printing my photos. Of course a few of them and after having post processed in LR or PS.
My post processing really imitates what I was doing in the darkroom many, too many years ago. A little bit more contrast here, dodging that area or burning this one. Not much, almost invisible but still perceptible.
I set a rule for myself: each time I go out with a camera, doesn't matter which one at least one photo has to be printed, larger or small. A printed pictures is a joy to discover when times flies...
robert
My post processing really imitates what I was doing in the darkroom many, too many years ago. A little bit more contrast here, dodging that area or burning this one. Not much, almost invisible but still perceptible.
I set a rule for myself: each time I go out with a camera, doesn't matter which one at least one photo has to be printed, larger or small. A printed pictures is a joy to discover when times flies...
robert
willie_901
Veteran
To me, digital printing of high-quality photographs is extraordinarily difficult.
For color work, managing color technologies throughout the entire workflow is a daunting task.
The printers themselves are not only expensive, but just as with cameras, significant improvements in printing technologies present a similar upgrade challenges. Unlike digital cameras printer maintenance is important, annoying and tedious.
Printing supplies and media can be very expensive. Quality inks are more expensive on a per milliliter basis than high-cost perfumes. Monitor quality matters and high-quality monitors are expensive.
B&W printing is equally demanding and expensive but in different ways.
For these reasons I find it more economical in terms of total costs, my time usage, and significantly less frustrating to use professional printing labs. I'm fortunate to have a couple of great labs in my city. I have found using excellent labs on the internet.
I have yet to find a reasonably priced source for printing self-published B&W photography books.
Of course printing good enough ™ photographs is less demanding and some of the above is not relevant.
For color work, managing color technologies throughout the entire workflow is a daunting task.
The printers themselves are not only expensive, but just as with cameras, significant improvements in printing technologies present a similar upgrade challenges. Unlike digital cameras printer maintenance is important, annoying and tedious.
Printing supplies and media can be very expensive. Quality inks are more expensive on a per milliliter basis than high-cost perfumes. Monitor quality matters and high-quality monitors are expensive.
B&W printing is equally demanding and expensive but in different ways.
For these reasons I find it more economical in terms of total costs, my time usage, and significantly less frustrating to use professional printing labs. I'm fortunate to have a couple of great labs in my city. I have found using excellent labs on the internet.
I have yet to find a reasonably priced source for printing self-published B&W photography books.
Of course printing good enough ™ photographs is less demanding and some of the above is not relevant.