I shoot slides and B/W. I develop my own B/W but send out the E6. I scan every frame of B/W but only selected slides. Scanning is for me an electronic contact sheet and a way to share selected shots with others. I made my own scanning setup with digital camera and mini-enlarger, but used an Epson V500 before that. I do believe darkroom printing to be the ultimate expression of black and white film photography. I eventually print my best B/W images but that is unfortunately a rare event for a variety of reasons these days. Reversal film, on the other hand, is a wholly unique experience of its own when projected. No ink, no paper, and definitely no computer screen can hold a candle to projecting a first generation slide. But because I eventually want prints from my slides, I have been looking into digital printing since there are no more Type R papers. I haven't gone far enough to identify the best method among many.
My feeling is that darkroom chemicals are no more toxic than household cleaners; the flame retardants applied to every new carpet and piece of furniture; paints; food additives; gasoline; plastics, and so on. Some would argue darkroom chemicals are more benign than any of the above as they are more likely to be handled and disposed of with care.
Studies conducted years ago found photographic lab workers who worked for minimum 20 years in a lab had life expectancy several years higher than average.
Please understand I'm not trying to cancel or demean those who develop very real sensitivities to these chemicals!
Anyway, sorry if I'm straying from the question. I just get triggered when the discussion of darkroom printing inevitably steers into toxicity as if the risk is somehow greater than any other modern technological process. I see the perpetuation of this 'foregone conclusion' as a very real tool that could threaten photochemical photography, especially when we are beholden to law makers whose modus operandi is sensationalism and low information.
It seems tempting for photographers who no longer print in the darkroom to lean on the 'received wisdom' of high toxicity. It's one thing to give up darkroom printing if you actually have a physical reaction, but I would ask for the rest of us, please don't just throw this out there so casually.
If, on the other hand, one's standard is a totally pure, toxin and risk-free existence, one could easily extrapolate that inkjet printing is just a way of transporting one's toxic waste burden to China rather than one's own country or local municipality. But at that point one shouldn't be living in anything more than a grass hut let alone touching a computer or doing photography.
All technology is/has always been a compromise between our potential for creativity and our original state as animals. Photography, either digital or analog, is not a special exception in either direction.
