Inkjet - the Devil's work?

I'd like to touch on the above environmental concerns.

In the very near past laboratories were (at least in Europe) responsible for making sure all chemicals used during the processing of film and papers were disposed of environmentally.

In 1992 laws passed here in the EU made it mandatory for all labs to have wash water tested for trace elements too–we were tested at least twice a year–an unannounced test from the local water authority.
Most processors went to the cartridge based model, where super stabilisers were used instead of wash-all 100% recovered.
The effluent was collected by a company on a month by month basis from the 5000 L tank and we were charged depending on the cost of disposal vs recovery of silver.
Basically after 1992 it was against the law to put any chemicals to ground.

B&W Chemicals used by consumers are less of a problem, developers being mainly organic benzine derivatives which break down during water/sewerage treatment.
Fixer was silver bearing so many had to dispose according to the law in their area, we as a lab accepted fixer from photographers for a small fee.

It is much harder to assess the pollutants from ink jet printing and digital as a whole so I'm not going to.
I think if you live any sort of modern life, drive a car, travel on a plain, heat your house, clean your toilet, change your phone every two years etc.
you have far more impact on the planet than film photography has at least here in Europe since 1992.

Trouble with the issue is most people think chemical=bad without thinking about their daily use of shower/oven/toilet cleaners etc
There are substances currently used in the manufacture of PCB's that are deadly, some of those very chemicals used to be in silver Photo paper too until the 1980's when Photographic companies were told to stop using them.
 
Sam Kanga said:
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).
Click to expand...

Its likely the other way around (and I realise photography and printing is a small part of this, but its the same impact) - e-waste. Considering how many people would likely be involved in optical printing versus the number contributing to digital printing along with the associated peripheral support - PCs, storage, etc.
 
Mcary said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Or perhaps the new Fauxtra 400...
 
The title of this thread will be a bit of a problem for aetheists. After all, you can hardly have the devil without the existence of god...

:cool: :angel:
 
jippiejee said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but turn that around a minute. "Your reality" is the reality you choose out on the range of realities available to you. This is often a question of priorities. Most of the best photographers I know have been quite a lot more obsessive about their photography than I am, and from all I can see, I'm quite a bit more obsessive than most others on most forums. Darkroom over new furniture? Easy choice.

There's an old Spanish proverb: "Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord." If you don't want to take much or pay much, fine.

When I say "pay" I don't mean just money. Time, effort, concentration, giving up other things: that's all a part of what you pay to do what's important to you. Would you work at McJobs to pay for your photography? If not, how much do you care about your photography? And don't pull the "I have kids and responsibilities" argument. Those were your choices too.

This is written principally to play Devil's Advocate, but hey, look at the title of the thread.

Cheers,

R.
 
I think that silver prints will always have their specific appeal, just like a pistacchio ice cream does... However, if we concentrate on the question, if digital prints underperform or outperform silver ones, the answer, as is often the case, is: it depends.
In the first place, say we compare a silver print made from a negative, and an inkjet one made from the same negative after scanning. If the scanning and post processing are state of the art - little if anything will be lost in terms of tonality. In terms of resolution, it is hard to say, but it appears, that at small enlargement factors, the silver prints outperform, and at large enlargements factors, inkjet prints outperform.
What remains clear to me, is that silver prints will almost invariably look better from a small distance, simply because of the almost infinite resolution of the emulsion, and a certain impression of depth. If I had to say what is a gold standard of B&W printing, it would probably be contact prints made on silver chloride paper. Perhaps one day the inkjets will achieve microscopic droplets so tiny, they will be indistinguishable.
On the other hand, if we have to compare a silver print from a negative to a silver print direct from a digital file, then currently the negative image will still outperform on any count except for resolution, no matter how many "film emulating" programs you apply to it, just like a state of the art analogue recording will outperform a digital one.
 
Franko said:
Digital prints made from scanned negatives look better to my eyes than those from digital camera files. Those of us of the old-time black and white persuasion grew up used to not seeing all 256 tones in every picture. A lot of the digital pictures and prints I see today show too much detail. Sometimes, what you don't see adds more impact than what you do.

Like it or not, digital is the here-and-now and the future. Younger people will see it as the norm and look at silver processes like we look at uncoated 1933 Leica lens pictures.
Click to expand...
With admiration?

Cheers,

R.
 
froyd said:
Well, it seems that an explanation of H&D curves is available on Roger and Frances site (http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20neg%20density.html). But I still have not heard anyone here who seems to have a grasp on their application in photo editing software -- is willing to share the knowledge. Isn't that Bill's point in the opening post?
Click to expand...

Different programs can display the raw files with different tonal values and different films have different H&D curves; so, we have to settle for a broad generalization about the difference between a “straight” conversion and one that emulates a b&w film curve. In general, the lower values, like shadow areas, will be darker and have less contrast. Lightroom users could get a rough idea by taking an image and looking at it first with no adjustment to the “tone curve” and then with the darks set to -30 and the shadows set to -10 along with a healthy boost in “clarity.”. It’s your eye and your taste when it comes to producing a b&w film "look" with a file from a digital camera, but those are the basic tools.
 
Every Epson printer I had was definitely the devil's work, and a good job he/she did too. They would suffer from ink clogs at the drop of a hat, cleaning cycles consumed huge quantities of ink, and more than a few of my prints faded after just 11 years, and that's w/ them being under the bed and not exposed to light. Yes, I used the best pigmented inks. I truly felt like I'd died and gone to heaven when I set up the darkroom, finally. Ink on paper is not silver in fiber photo paper. Big difference in archival quality too. I just tore up all of my inkjets one night, which was about 9 years worth of work, after seeing the difference between them and the darkroom work.
 
Who has considered that any significant differentiation between a print being make via silver or quality digital process is in actuality a negative reflection of the quality of the photograph / photographer?

Sorry, but I have seen too many great prints of less than great photographs.
 
Sitting at my computer in my office in a corner of the bedroom, I glance to the wall just on my left and there is a framed 11x14 inkjet print of an image I took back in 1973. I have silver prints I made of this same negative. Love both... No devil's work going on here ;-)
 
jippiejee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Gary
 
Inkjet printers are not the devil's work - they provide more precise control in the printing process than was ever available when making silver prints. Not exactly the ruination of humanity, IMHO.

However: Digital cameras are an invention straight from the pit of hell. Look at the painfully long list of magnificent film cameras - of all formats - that have been felled by the digital hysteria.

Digital cameras are evil - pure evil incarnate. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom