Bill Pierce
Well-known
I have several friends who feel that black-and-white inkjet prints are the devil’s work. “Silver is better.” is the usual rant, although I’m not quite sure what that means. If more and more silver papers and top flight enlargers disappear from the market, silver is going to become what platinum printing was when silver was at its height - interesting, beautiful, expensive and with limited controls compared to silver. The limited controls of silver printing when compared to digital printing are simply the limits of contrast and brightness controls, overall and local, inherent in the wet darkroom as compared to a digital image whose tonal qualities are being controlled by a computer. For the most part, when we talk about the inkjet print, we are really talking about a digital image, computer processing and an inkjet printer. I see both good and bad prints from such a process. Usually they are the result of good and bad printers - not inkjet printers, good and bad human printers, same as in the silver days.
In many cases we are judging the quality of an inkjet print from what we saw in the good silver prints of the past. That’s fair. But a “straight” print from a digital file does not normally have the same tonal distribution produced by a film negative with an H&D curve printed on a silver paper, also with an H&D curve. May I suggest that digital photographers take a look at computer programs that emulate those curves. DxO Filmpack and Silver Efex Pro 2 are good examples of such programs, and, while the same effects can be created with basic image processing programs, many folks are going to find it easier to emulate film and that wet darkroom silver print using the add-ons. Hopefully, they will also be much happier with their black-and-white inkjet prints.
Any other thoughts for those embarking on making black-and-white inkjet prints from their digital files?
In many cases we are judging the quality of an inkjet print from what we saw in the good silver prints of the past. That’s fair. But a “straight” print from a digital file does not normally have the same tonal distribution produced by a film negative with an H&D curve printed on a silver paper, also with an H&D curve. May I suggest that digital photographers take a look at computer programs that emulate those curves. DxO Filmpack and Silver Efex Pro 2 are good examples of such programs, and, while the same effects can be created with basic image processing programs, many folks are going to find it easier to emulate film and that wet darkroom silver print using the add-ons. Hopefully, they will also be much happier with their black-and-white inkjet prints.
Any other thoughts for those embarking on making black-and-white inkjet prints from their digital files?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
There seems to be a mind set among many that digital printing is done at the mere press of a button and the computer via software controls the output ... which is true to a point I guess.
A good digital print requires a lot of skill and judgement though.
A good digital print requires a lot of skill and judgement though.
thegman
Veteran
I don't print optically, or inkjet, but I do send off for prints. I'd probably rather get an optical print than an inkjet, but that would mean find somewhere to send a 4x5 negative.
I don't know if one is better than the other, but I must say that the idea of all these digital 'film' packs to make digital look like film just seems inauthentic to me.
I don't know if one is better than the other, but I must say that the idea of all these digital 'film' packs to make digital look like film just seems inauthentic to me.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Strawberry flavouring, anyone? TVP (Textured Vegetable Protein) "beef"?
A food technologist friend explained to me once: "The first generation imitation is very good, and half the price of the real thing. The first generation imitation then becomes the standard. The second generation version is only slightly cheaper, but nothing like as good."
All right, far from a perfect analogy. But I'd rather have a good, honest digi print (such as Cone Editions Piezography) than a fake silver halide print.
Cheers,
R.
jippiejee
Well-known
I just stopped caring 'what would have been possible had I still a darkroom studio' when my reality is that now my apartment is too tiny for one, just like I don't care how far a Porsche would get me in an hour's drive while I only own a bicycle. I'm very happy with the printing tool and control that my inkjet printer gives me, compared not not being able to print at all. It might be a problem if museums would regularly call me for prints maybe, but that's hardly a reality for me or anyone here I suspect. While in offset print that difference will be moot anyway.
Shac
Well-known
As someone who was a darkroom printer since I was 12, and now a digital printer, I'd never go back.
Humour included, jipiejee's comments are my sentiments also. Bill's & Keith's comments are on target for me as well.
To state the obvious posters sometimes seem to forget that what satisfies one person, probably won't satisfy everyone.
thegman
Veteran
Hi Roger,
I know there is a lot of inauthenticity in the world, it does not mean I have to like it, or indeed embrace it as part of my hobby.
Say if it was possible to make something which tasted identical to Lagavulin (or perhaps Laphroaig, if you prefer) without 16 or 10 years in the barrel, I'd still want the real thing, as it just feels good to have something that is "real".
I know we could get into very grey areas talking about what is "real", but I like the idea of seeing an oil painting and knowing someone has created it with oils, rather than applied an effect in a computer program. My entire livilihood comes from computer programming, so I don't have a problem with computers, but I do have a problem with fakery.
Like I say, nothing in the world against digital prints. A digital print made to look like film is too Instagrammy for me.
Garry
Bill Clark
Veteran
I don't make ink jet prints. Send everything to a lab via the internet. Maybe I'm missing something, however, for me at least, there are only 24 hrs. to each of my days!
NY_Dan
Well-known
Of course nothing can replace the harmony of going film - develop - print. So now I go film - dev -scan - Hard drive/Some Tumblr/Faves for Blurb Book/Some Prints.
I miss my darkroom printing days. I wasn't half bad. If I had space/water/drainage for a print darkroom, I'd do it. I have a Leitz Enlarger I snagged for $100 in my garage, so I hope...
With scans I can remove dust and scratches easily, and do my burn/dodge and get repeatability. I read that Leica Monochrome owners have access to a service that prints traditional from digital files. I was thinking today and remembering words like kodabromide, Agfa grade 6 -- I'm old enough to remember as a teenager the announcement of the blasphemy of resin coated RC photo paper. Now they call paper without a light sensitive emulsion "photo-paper." And people who've never known the art of having their hands move like wings between the enlarging lens and paper call themselves photographers.
It's all pluses and minuses -- but we're still shooting and doing our thing... What was the question? Oh Devil's work -- perhaps, he's a sneaking guy that Beelzebub.
I miss my darkroom printing days. I wasn't half bad. If I had space/water/drainage for a print darkroom, I'd do it. I have a Leitz Enlarger I snagged for $100 in my garage, so I hope...
With scans I can remove dust and scratches easily, and do my burn/dodge and get repeatability. I read that Leica Monochrome owners have access to a service that prints traditional from digital files. I was thinking today and remembering words like kodabromide, Agfa grade 6 -- I'm old enough to remember as a teenager the announcement of the blasphemy of resin coated RC photo paper. Now they call paper without a light sensitive emulsion "photo-paper." And people who've never known the art of having their hands move like wings between the enlarging lens and paper call themselves photographers.
It's all pluses and minuses -- but we're still shooting and doing our thing... What was the question? Oh Devil's work -- perhaps, he's a sneaking guy that Beelzebub.
Pablito
coco frío
My only advice would be if you do inkjet prints, take great care if you choose to use the Baryta papers, they are very touchy and sensitive. White gloves not a bad idea, and the protective spray after the print has dried for a day is a very good ideal.
jippiejee
Well-known
I live by a very simple principle in life: Trust all joy. Maybe we should just stop judging each other (devil? is what I like diabolic suddenly?) on our processes and gear choices. We see the Fuji people here every day screaming for recognition because of this. We all share a love for photography, yet we seem to try so hard to divide each other into opposing camps: the 'real artisan ones', 'the fake and lazy ones' etc.
My father came by today and really liked this bar shot I had printed on my table. He never mentioned the lack of silver halide grain. He really liked the subject and composition of the photo. Maybe that's what counts more to me.
My father came by today and really liked this bar shot I had printed on my table. He never mentioned the lack of silver halide grain. He really liked the subject and composition of the photo. Maybe that's what counts more to me.
gns
Well-known
Thank you.
Yep, me too. I concentrate on what I can do instead of what isn't really available to me.
willie_901
Veteran
There are laser printers used for B&W printing on silver halide papers.
These are generally called digital silver halide prints.
These are generally called digital silver halide prints.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Color printing can be done on them too (Fuji Frontier, etc.)
This whole obsession that amateurs have about authenticity is tiresome. It shows a profound lack of knowledge about photography's history. The False Idol of the "Silver Print" is just that, a false idol. Silver-gelatin printing was not invented until nearly 80 years after photography's invention and did not come into common use until even later.
There have been numerous printing processes in Photography's nearly 200 year history, including some that used copper plates with the image etched into them to print on non-sensitized paper....photointaglio printing. No one back when that was a popular process among artists like Alfred Steiglitz and Edward Steichen ever suggested that it was not 'authentic.'
Take note that I said Photography has had a nearly 200 year history. The first photographs were made in the 1820s, and they didn't even involve prints! Early processes like Daguerrotype used metal plates that developed directly into a finished photo. No paper!
It just amazes me that people can spend so much energy defending such narrow-minded bigotry about what is 'authentic' in Photography. We've had, what, three threads dedicated to this idiocy in the last week? If these people spent half the time they spend spouting half-baked bigotry and actually cracked a book they might actually learn something about what this great form of art is capable of. I'll simplify it: No one ever became famous for the process they used, except possibly the early pioneers who actually invented photography. After that, it was the image that mattered. Nothing else.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I don't find digital prints inferior to darkroom prints at all.
My preference depends on the individual print.
Having said that, I simply find darkroom printing immensely more satisfying for me to do than sitting on the computer and printing on the printer.
My preference depends on the individual print.
Having said that, I simply find darkroom printing immensely more satisfying for me to do than sitting on the computer and printing on the printer.
Mcary
Well-known
On one hand I really like the results you can get by processing digital files through some of the different "film packs" On the other hand I've never really thought the results really look like the real thing. Which is why I joking refer to them by terms like Fakachrome
zuiko85
Veteran
Silver Prints! Holy cow you guy make everything too complicated.
A camera obscura a piece of paper and a #2 pencil.
A camera obscura a piece of paper and a #2 pencil.
froyd
Veteran
Bill-
Care to illuminate the uninitiated on H&D curves? Much as I understand the convenience of the software packages you recommend, I like to try my hand processing images with less automation in order to better understand the process.
In terms of digital printing, I've always been more than happy with the results, even in my early days with black-only prints and pietzography. Now the new printers make it even easier to achieve great results with minimal or no metamerism and very neutral tones. Despite spending many years in the darkroom, I have few prints that I truly love whereas with the Epson and LR, I'm usually extremely satisfied with the processing and the print, and I create photographs that my skill set would not be able to easily match with wet prints.
Care to illuminate the uninitiated on H&D curves? Much as I understand the convenience of the software packages you recommend, I like to try my hand processing images with less automation in order to better understand the process.
In terms of digital printing, I've always been more than happy with the results, even in my early days with black-only prints and pietzography. Now the new printers make it even easier to achieve great results with minimal or no metamerism and very neutral tones. Despite spending many years in the darkroom, I have few prints that I truly love whereas with the Epson and LR, I'm usually extremely satisfied with the processing and the print, and I create photographs that my skill set would not be able to easily match with wet prints.
Sam Kanga
Established
Hello Bill,
I'm glad you brought up this point, and it's good to read the other opinions.
My question for you or anyone else out there is about the environmental impact of b/w film developing and darkroom printing vs digital capture and inkjet printing. I'm sure there is much lower impact going digitally, and this is my main reason for wanting to get away from the chemicals.
Has there been a study showing how much less we would pollute going digital? (all things considered). I know we can do silver recovery from the fixer, so that's something, but what about all the other chemicals? They have got to be bad news - and don't get me started on stuff like selenium toner.
I'm a long time darkroom/silver print guy, but once really good b/w papers were available for inkjet printing, I thought this would be the way to go, and assume that papers and printers will only get better. I am now scanning my old b/w 35mm negs and find I can really do a lot more precise dodging and burning etc. on the computer than I could do if printing conventionally. It still takes a while to get an image done, you have to put the work in, but this is definitely the way to go. Unfortunately some gallery owners are still a bit wobbly about prints that are not silver gelatin, but hopefully that's changing as well.
Thanks
Sam
I'm glad you brought up this point, and it's good to read the other opinions.
My question for you or anyone else out there is about the environmental impact of b/w film developing and darkroom printing vs digital capture and inkjet printing. I'm sure there is much lower impact going digitally, and this is my main reason for wanting to get away from the chemicals.
Has there been a study showing how much less we would pollute going digital? (all things considered). I know we can do silver recovery from the fixer, so that's something, but what about all the other chemicals? They have got to be bad news - and don't get me started on stuff like selenium toner.
I'm a long time darkroom/silver print guy, but once really good b/w papers were available for inkjet printing, I thought this would be the way to go, and assume that papers and printers will only get better. I am now scanning my old b/w 35mm negs and find I can really do a lot more precise dodging and burning etc. on the computer than I could do if printing conventionally. It still takes a while to get an image done, you have to put the work in, but this is definitely the way to go. Unfortunately some gallery owners are still a bit wobbly about prints that are not silver gelatin, but hopefully that's changing as well.
Thanks
Sam