Scan and Print, or Wet Darkroom for 6x7?

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

I don't disagree with anything in your last post.
But it's quite different from your first... "Wet every time for mono..."

I was only trying to advise that no process is inherently better than another, that it is a personal (aesthetic) decision, and that it should be based on getting out and seeing the real thing rather than on what people want to tell you on the internet.

Does that seem reasonable?

Cheers,
gary

Dear Gary,

I would not argue with anything in the above, for an instant. My only defence of 'Wet every time, for mono', is that I took it to be a question of personal opinion, because, as you point out, that's all it can ever be. If I'd made it 'For me, wet every time...', I don't think I'd have added anything to the meaning.

I could not agree more with your exhortation to get out and see as many good, real prints as possible, rather than relying on the internet.

Cheers,

R.

 

[didjiman]

Didgiman,

I was trying to search for the gallery where I saw the Leivick show and came up with something that might be of interest. He will be giving a lecture at Stanford on Nov 12.
Info here...http://events.stanford.edu/events/195/19591/

If your interested.

Cheers,
gary

Gary, thanks. Definitely will go there.

Thanks all for the info.

Since the cost is relatively low, I will probably pick up either a Beseler XMT with dichro colorhead and a 80mm lens for $250, or a LPC 4550, but that person wants $550.

So unless the LPC4550 is significantly better, I will probably go with the XMT. Any argument against that?

Thanks!
// richard

 

[Bob Michaels]

<snip>but getting to a good print is pretty much the same deal as getting to Carnegie Hall. <snip>
- Barrett

Barrett, very true. And applicable equally to both darkroom and digital printing.

OP: I would caution you to be careful of those from either side who do not completely acknowledge there is a user skill level that makes much more difference than the hardware. Digital printing is not a "click and print" process any more than darkroom printing is just turning the enlarger on and off. Apologies to Roger but the guy demoing the latest printers at the trade show may be a good salesman but may not be a very good printer himself. Sort of like evaluating the merits of darkroom prints by what the Beseler salesman can do.

 

[degruyl]

Apologies to Roger but the guy demoing the latest printers at the trade show may be a good salesman but may not be a very good printer himself. Sort of like evaluating the merits of darkroom prints by what the Beseler salesman can do.

One thing the salesman can do is demo the same file, or set of files, over and over again.

Digital is infinitely reproducible with the same paper, printer and ink.

Analog, unfortunately, is not.

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

Re: the concept of "infinitely reproducible":

If something is infinitely reproducible, doesn't it then become a commodity? and don't commodities simply sell for the cheapest price for X amount?
A good example is iTunes, where everything, including a movement of a Mahler symphony, sells for 99 cents. Is a movement of a Mahler symphony and all that went into composing, playing, and recording it, with highly-trained musicians playing on million-dollar 18th century instruments, really only worth 99 cents?

When I discovered digital, I thought "awesome--now I can make the same perfect image again and again!"

But now I'm starting to wonder if the concept of infinite and perfect reproduction of a work of art simply destroys the value of that art.

 

[Roger Warren]

The darkroom is time consuming but, makes me feel so good.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Barrett, very true. And applicable equally to both darkroom and digital printing.

OP: I would caution you to be careful of those from either side who do not completely acknowledge there is a user skill level that makes much more difference than the hardware. Digital printing is not a "click and print" process any more than darkroom printing is just turning the enlarger on and off. Apologies to Roger but the guy demoing the latest printers at the trade show may be a good salesman but may not be a very good printer himself. Sort of like evaluating the merits of darkroom prints by what the Beseler salesman can do.

Dear Bob,

No, what I'm talking about is the gallery shots they have on the stand: the best that can be made with that particular equipment. Only very rarely is there an actual live demo of any printer, as that is (literally) like watching paint dry.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

WET every time. Lots of reasons and not enough time to type them!

 

[mgd711]

OP: I would caution you to be careful of those from either side who do not completely acknowledge there is a user skill level that makes much more difference than the hardware. Digital printing is not a "click and print" process any more than darkroom printing is just turning the enlarger on and off. Apologies to Roger but the guy demoing the latest printers at the trade show may be a good salesman but may not be a very good printer himself. Sort of like evaluating the merits of darkroom prints by what the Beseler salesman can do.

After a year of experimentation and thousands of dollars wasted I can say this is 100% true.

I like to print digitally but its totally different from wet printing (B&W).

I thought it would be quite simple, buy a good printer, press print, job done...

Months later, several expensive roll's of paper wasted and a lot off ink used I finally realised that there is a certain art and a lot of skill to getting digital printing right, just as there is with wet B&W printing.

The two animals are totally different and shouldn't be directly compared to one another.

I'd recommend Uwe Steinmullers book (Digital Outback Photography) "The art of digital fine art printing" as a starting point.

If you have the time, the space and the right mental attitude go with wet printing but expect a learning curve.

If you want a print without all the chemicals and sweat then go with digital printing but also expect a learning curve.

My favorite papers for the iPF5100 is Ilfords Gold Fibre Silk Baryta, Hahnemulle's Sugar Cane and Bamboo papers... but then we get into another tricky area...

 

[didjiman]

Partial Success!!!

So I got a 4x5 enlarger, then found out that the guy only has a 35mm diffusion chamber in it. Oops. No biggie, bought a 4x5 diffusion chamber off Ebay for $40. Then a 105mm Rodenstock from Adorama for $80, and a set of neg carriers (35mm,6x6,6x7,4x5) for $130. All of the sudden, the $250 enlarger is adding up fast 🙂

Since none of the above has arrived yet, I made a home made 6x7 neg carrier out of cardboard, and devil be damned and use the 35mm diffusion chamber (which illuminates just the center circle). Set up my darkroom again and pop this in the my homemade carrier (well, without the copyright logo 🙂 ):

In my previous darkroom foray, I bought the RH Design Analyzer Pro, which is basically a F-stop timer with a spot meter. Click click and it says, grade 0 for (12 seconds). Did a small 5x7 test print. Soak it in the Nova processor, and 2 mins later it looks too flat. So couple clicks on the Analyzer Pro, changed the paper grade to grade 1, set the filters on the enlarger, put in a 8x10, and a few mins later, a really nice 8x10 came out. Man, no grain, smoothest tonal range. I love this stuff. With the 35mm chamber and 80mm lens, it's only a partial picture. I will scan it in on a flatbed tomorrow after it dries...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Both 35mm and Medium format look a lot better enlarged and printed (silver paper) for several reasons:

1. No other "in the middle process" to lose original quality, like scanning.
2. Unbeatable tonal range if silver paper is used.
3. Digital printing is 300dpi, real silver paper is MANY TIMES that.
4. Longer lasting prints.

And I agree with Roger: you don't need to make large prints to appreciate those benefits... Small prints are splendid too, and even contact prints from 4x5.

I clearly see that when comparing a small print, let's say 4x5 enlarged from 35mm or medium format, to a scanned file digitally printed to the same size, the difference is more noticeable, because with the horrible 300dpi thing, in small sizes you loose all your detail, even if you have it in your file.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

"1. No other "in the middle process" to lose original quality, like scanning."

Juan,
Actually, a good scan can be better than an enlarging lens because it moves across the film--under an enlarging lens there are optical imperfections towards the edges.
Scott