On vieving the photographs: inkjet against darkroom

[mfogiel]

Since I have moved to this place, I have realized, that I will have to rethink the way I'd like to look at the photographs. The space here is so expensive, that you simply have to sacrifice something. Instead of expanding into A2 print territory for framing and hanging them on the wall, I am thinking about going smaller: printing within A4 size, framing only in a passepartout and keeping the prints in 24x30 cm collection boxes for viewing in hand.

This has brought up a thought, which relates to the quality of close viewing experience: I only shoot B&W, and do hybrid process, printing on Epson R2400 and Ilford Gallery Gold Silk. As much as I like this output, It is clear to me, that it is still quite a bit away from the "gold standard" of this kind of print appreciation, which is a contact printed 8x10 inch negative.
While I have no space for a darkroom, I might use a collective darkroom every now and then just for quick contact printing. However, this would mean getting into LF cameras, with all the hassle of super slow photography and bulky equipment.

Ideally, I would prefer to limit myself to MF and find a way in which I could "contact" print from my scanned and adjusted negative on a machine that would spit out output comparable to that of wet darkroom. I read once, that Ilford has produced something similar on request of David Bailey.

Is any of you aware of a lab (preferably in Europe), which would be able to execute darkroom quality B&W fiber prints from a digital file?

 

[Steve M.]

Having inkjet printed my scanned B&W film for years, and having seen the results of a properly made B&W fiber print made from an enlarger, I'd have to say that you can't get that "gold standard" look from any inkjet print. Not to say that you can't get very high quality prints from an inkjet, you can. But you'll never get ink on paper to look like silver in photographic fiber paper. The image is actually IN the fiber paper, not on it. It's two totally unrelated processes.

I agree w/ you on LF. Anyone used to 35mm or MF will probably have a hard time w/ the slowness and weight of LF. I did. If you want contact prints, anything smaller than 6x9 is out of the question (I consider even 4x5 marginal for a print).

 

[literiter]

I have been using a hybrid process as well.
I scan my B&W and color negatives on a Nikon CS9000 scanner. The scan is pretty good.

I Photoshop a bit then print to a Epson R1900 or give to a very good local commercial printer.

I find the color work quite acceptable but I do not like what I have been able to produce from Black and White from anyone's printer.

My wife and I own a picture framing shop. I get to quietly judge the work we receive and find that I like the traditional darkroom Black and White prints far better.

Color seems better rendered from a ink jet.

I'm considering a darkroom again even though space is a premium for me as well.

 

[monochromejrnl]

http://www.picto.fr/

They do Lambda fibre prints from digital files... I believe they were one of the labs that tested Ilfords lambda fibre paper when it was being developed...

 

[mbisc]

I agree w/ you on LF. Anyone used to 35mm or MF will probably have a hard time w/ the slowness and weight of LF. I did. If you want contact prints, anything smaller than 6x9 is out of the question (I consider even 4x5 marginal for a print).

Agree on the size. For a variety of reasons, I am currently limited to contact printing 4x5 negatives, and although they look okay (in custom made 11x14 mats), they are the smallest I would ever want to do.

I personally find 4x5 photography (with the right equipment) very rewarding and the "slow speeds" very beneficial for my type of photography, but obviously that's different for everyone.

 

[mfogiel]

Thanks monochromejrnl
As far as I could understand, I should download the B&W profile for softproofing. I wonder, if they only do neutral prints on baryta paper, or if it would be possible to do the toning later.
This could be the solution, as I would do all the editing, dodging&burning myself in PS, and they would just print the file as is. I think that prints 18x18cm from 6x6 should come out pretty good. BTW, I believe this is the format used by Michael Kenna.

 

[vitaly66]

One thing I have considered -- but have not yet done -- is to use the inkjet to generate an 8x10 "negative" from the scanned/adjusted image file onto transparency material (OHP). Then from that transparency, proceed to make a traditional contact print on gelatin-silver papers.

The final print then will then have all the classic aesthetics and archival qualities of gelatin-silver.

Or if you prefer, platinum-palladium. In fact, any number of classic and alternative processes are available with this sort of hybrid strategy.

Anyway, I think such a way of contact-printing 8x10 is fully possible with just a little equipment (contact print frame, light source, and chemistry trays) in a modest space.

 

[semrich]

Marek, I've a similar but different situation. I have access to a shared darkroom and have learned and been printing fiber based prints from my negatives. I have a scanner that now gets used mainly for posting photos on forums.

I want to be able to make digital negatives from an inkjet printer and contact print them in the darkroom using Silver Efex Pro 2 to get as close to a film look as possible.

Here are 2 links that I've come across that may be a solution:

http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/main_pages/book_info_main_page1.htm


http://diamond-jet.com/ultrapremiumohptransparencyfilm.aspx

I have the Dan Burkholder book downloaded and as yet to delve into it until I can get my hands on the paper. I plan to do a standard size contact print on Ilford 9 1/2 X 12 FB Multigrade paper. I'm also working out how to get the best file to print from the full Nik software bundle. I don't have a printer but have a guy who did my prior inkjet prints and would work with Burkholder profiles. If it works out I may get my own printer.

 

[sevo]

Is any of you aware of a lab (preferably in Europe), which would be able to execute darkroom quality B&W fiber prints from a digital file?

As nobody mentioned them so far, I'll suggest Ilford Lab in the UK: http://www.ilfordlab.com/

 

[Michael Markey]

As nobody mentioned them so far, I'll suggest Ilford Lab in the UK: http://www.ilfordlab.com/

I use them for all my printing.
Very helpful.

 

[monochromejrnl]

I've experimented with making (using QTR) digital inkjet negs and making Pt/pl contact prints with them (UV exposure) - presumably the same can be done using digital inkjet negs produced for silver contact prints...

results from this hybrid process are very rewarding ...

[/url]
playa pelada, costa rica - April 2010 by monochromejournal-v2.0, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[mfogiel]

I have looked up Picto, and they require a MINIMUM of 18 uncompressed megapixels for a 18x24cm B&W baryta print ( in practice a whole file from the M9M). This would mean, that they can use about 900PPI in their reproduction chain, which sounds very promising, as I have read somewhere, that human eye normally cannot discern more than 600PPI, even from a close distance.
I am not sure, that printing on an inkjet on a transparent media, and contact printing subsequently, would produce optical quality any better than an inkjet print itself. Perhaps, the print could have nicer tones or surface, but not the resolution.

 

[Keith]

Have you seen Ron Reeder's site?

I find this intriguing and would love to have a try at some level!

 

[monochromejrnl]

Have you seen Ron Reeder's site?

I find this intriguing and would love to have a try at some level!

Ron is an awesome guy - very willing to share his vast knowledge and skill. I assisted him on a workshop he ran a little over a year ago in Toronto.

I can highly recommend his book on how to make QTR Digital Negatives - it's available for download from his site.

 

[d_ross]

What has to be remembered is that to get great darkroom prints you need two things, apart from good negatives of course, a good enlarger and lenses, and a good knowledge of the printing process and the related chemistry etc, to get good inkjet prints you need two things, a good printer, and a good understanding of inkjet papers and process, and profiling. To get very good prints either way you have to spend a lot of time doing it, at which point in my opinion you can get either process to produce beautiful prints that when under glass, and often in the hand, few can tell which is which. Not that I'm suggesting this is you, but many people believe it should be easy to make great inkjet prints because it is so machine driven which is of course completely wrong.

 

[Sylvester]

There's nothing wrong in enlarging a 35mm frame...

 

[Aristophanes]

Not Europe, but I've seen work from this shop and it is phenomenal:

http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/

This fellow or Ilford folks may be able to point you in the right direction for what you want.