didjiman
Richard Man
My Mamiya 7II is treating me pretty well:
http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/PICS/Yosemite09-2/
I have a Nikon LS8000 scanner, and the output from the large format printer on Baryta paper is quite nice.
I wonder though, with people practically giving their 4x5 enlargers away, since I have most of the "other stuff" already (print washer, f-stop timer), whether I should pick one up and try medium format wetroom printing?
Any comments and recommendations from people who still print wetroom style?
http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/PICS/Yosemite09-2/
I have a Nikon LS8000 scanner, and the output from the large format printer on Baryta paper is quite nice.
I wonder though, with people practically giving their 4x5 enlargers away, since I have most of the "other stuff" already (print washer, f-stop timer), whether I should pick one up and try medium format wetroom printing?
Any comments and recommendations from people who still print wetroom style?
amateriat
We're all light!
It all depends: temperament, equipment at hand, willingness to roll up the sleeves and work that equipment. Both paths are valid, and each has its adherents. Each requires care to get the most out of that piece of film, and practice to get the most out of that negative and onto paper. The rest is details.
I'm a 35mm adherent, and I scan everything, although shooting film in the first place lets me reserve the right to wet-print if I wish to do so. When scanning film of any format, you want as good a scanner as you can afford, and, if you're doing your own printing, you'll won't want to skimp there, either.
In some ways, the wet darkroom is much less equipment-intensive; you needn't fret over not having this week's enlarger or easel. If anything, some of the best gear in this department was made years ago, and selling for pennies on the dollar now. Nonetheless, setup and protocol are important: a properly-aligned enlarger, placed on a vibration-free platform, is necessary, IMO. The rest can be handled in a number of ways (almost too many), but getting to a good print is pretty much the same deal as getting to Carnegie Hall. (Having a dedicated space for a full-time darkroom helps a lot, but isn't absolutely necessary.)
That's my brief take. There will be many others shortly.
- Barrett
I'm a 35mm adherent, and I scan everything, although shooting film in the first place lets me reserve the right to wet-print if I wish to do so. When scanning film of any format, you want as good a scanner as you can afford, and, if you're doing your own printing, you'll won't want to skimp there, either.
In some ways, the wet darkroom is much less equipment-intensive; you needn't fret over not having this week's enlarger or easel. If anything, some of the best gear in this department was made years ago, and selling for pennies on the dollar now. Nonetheless, setup and protocol are important: a properly-aligned enlarger, placed on a vibration-free platform, is necessary, IMO. The rest can be handled in a number of ways (almost too many), but getting to a good print is pretty much the same deal as getting to Carnegie Hall. (Having a dedicated space for a full-time darkroom helps a lot, but isn't absolutely necessary.)
That's my brief take. There will be many others shortly.
- Barrett
Last edited:
le vrai rdu
Well-known
Wet print is much more nicer
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Wet, every time, for mono, wegardless of format. Wet off MF is EVEN NICER than wet off 35mm. Frances and I have several MF cameras/backs and normally only shoot B+W with them.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
shimokita
白黒
While I would love to do wet prints and I have done it for years in the past, my current situation does not allow it. Since returning to MF (6x7) via a used RB67 (sorry not a rf) I want to share my efforts to a distributed audience ---> scanning is the best solution for me now.
Casey
Casey
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
For B&W, the answer is wet print. B&W computer prints do not look even remotely similar, for whatever reason. Unless I am doing something wrong. (Test was with a Frontier B&W printer via Adoramapix).
I really need to start doing that, since I have the equipment and all.
I really need to start doing that, since I have the equipment and all.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Even if you don't start wet printing at this point it's a good time to start buying the equipment anyway. There's lots of it out there at rock bottom prices. At some point a lot of it will get discarded and end up in landfills, and what's left will start going up in price.
Also, at this point it's still fairly easy to find condsensor sets and negative carriers, but a lot of that stuff hasn't been made in years. I bought used Kodak Precision enlarger several years ago with the standard 2.25x3.25 120 negative carrier for $20. A couple of years ago I was at a yard sale and found a box of "photo junk" for a couple of dollars. There were two of sets of variable contrast filters and about every negative carrier Kodak made for that enlarger, including 6.5x9cm sheet film, several formats on 127 film and 120/620 film, plus 828 which also works for 126 Instamatic negatives.
One neat gizmo is a swinging plate that replaces the red filter under the lens. It has three openings for tri-color seperation filters. The filters were shot but I'm planning on replacing them with variable contrast filters.
Also, at this point it's still fairly easy to find condsensor sets and negative carriers, but a lot of that stuff hasn't been made in years. I bought used Kodak Precision enlarger several years ago with the standard 2.25x3.25 120 negative carrier for $20. A couple of years ago I was at a yard sale and found a box of "photo junk" for a couple of dollars. There were two of sets of variable contrast filters and about every negative carrier Kodak made for that enlarger, including 6.5x9cm sheet film, several formats on 127 film and 120/620 film, plus 828 which also works for 126 Instamatic negatives.
One neat gizmo is a swinging plate that replaces the red filter under the lens. It has three openings for tri-color seperation filters. The filters were shot but I'm planning on replacing them with variable contrast filters.
Last edited:
delft
Established
Wet for B&W; it gives much more satisfaction. If you don't go bigger than 6x7 (or even 6x9), you don't really need a 4x5 inch enlarger. Those beasts are large!
Good luck,
Dirk
Good luck,
Dirk
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
You can do 6x9 in a 120 enlarger? Not that I have a 6x9 camera...
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The original Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide 100 makes seven 2.25x3.5 inch negatives on 120. The 6.5x9cm Kodak Precision carrier is a perfect match!
Steve M.
Veteran
Are you shooting B&W film? If so, then the best image quality will come from a wet print (no surprise there), IF you learn to print in a darkroom as well as w/ an inkjet. I suspect that a lot of people are not willing to do the testing & trials to get great wet prints and turn back to scanning and inkjets because it's something they're familiar w/ and it's faster and easier.
You'll also have to be a better (or at least more careful) photographer because you can't easily make large changes and fixes to your image like you can in a digital darkroom.
To me it's worth it to get the look a properly made B&W print gives you, but it's a huge commitment to get the best results that you can from the process.
You'll also have to be a better (or at least more careful) photographer because you can't easily make large changes and fixes to your image like you can in a digital darkroom.
To me it's worth it to get the look a properly made B&W print gives you, but it's a huge commitment to get the best results that you can from the process.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
I don't think I was ever "good" at either. But I was better at wet prints than I am now with digital. All the advice here has been good. I do think amateriat was most on track. As with all things photographic (and in life), there are trade-offs.
Merkin
For the Weekend
*I am going to assume, judging from the equipment you listed in your first post that you have the wherewithal financially to do pretty much whatever you want photographically, but do keep in mind that this could very well get expensive.
I am sure a number of people will disagree with me on this, but if you are just planning on setting up to do 8x10's, I'm not sure it would be worth it. On the other hand, if you want to print large, I say go for it, although it will require a bit more time, space, and money. When making 8x10's with 35mm, you can just set up a complete darkroom in the bathroom. When making large prints with 6x7 negatives in a 4x5 enlarger, using the bathroom (as a darkroom) becomes difficult unless you have a seriously large bathroom, because the enlarger is significantly larger, and all of the trays you will be using will need to be significantly larger. A dedicated room would really be best.
Most of the enlargers I see listed on CL are either 35mm enlargers or 4x5 enlargers, and while I have certainly printed 6x6 on a 35mm enlarger, the film was barely small enough to get a good print without vignetting. With 6x7, I would definitely recommend a 4x5 enlarger.
You should definitely go for it. Pulling a really nice 16x20 glossy fiber print made from a well exposed medium format negative out of the soup is a marvelous feeling.
I am sure a number of people will disagree with me on this, but if you are just planning on setting up to do 8x10's, I'm not sure it would be worth it. On the other hand, if you want to print large, I say go for it, although it will require a bit more time, space, and money. When making 8x10's with 35mm, you can just set up a complete darkroom in the bathroom. When making large prints with 6x7 negatives in a 4x5 enlarger, using the bathroom (as a darkroom
) becomes difficult unless you have a seriously large bathroom, because the enlarger is significantly larger, and all of the trays you will be using will need to be significantly larger. A dedicated room would really be best. Most of the enlargers I see listed on CL are either 35mm enlargers or 4x5 enlargers, and while I have certainly printed 6x6 on a 35mm enlarger, the film was barely small enough to get a good print without vignetting. With 6x7, I would definitely recommend a 4x5 enlarger.
You should definitely go for it. Pulling a really nice 16x20 glossy fiber print made from a well exposed medium format negative out of the soup is a marvelous feeling.
gns
Well-known
Practical differences (cost, convenience, etc) may be important, but most important is the look that you want. Only you can decide that. And you may even choose different media for different images.
The best thing to do is to look at a lot of good work in different media.
Do not listen to those who make blanket statements like, "Silver prints look better". (They probably have never seen really good ink jet prints). It looks like you might be in Palo Alto (or at least in the bay area) Is that right? If you haven't done so, check out the work of Joel Leivick. I believe he teaches at Stanford. He has made some amazing B&W ink jet prints. I saw some of them a while back at a show in S.F. (forget which gallery) and was impressed.
I like some of your pictures from Yosemite. They seem straight forward and honest. Not striving for the overly dramatic which is what you usually see people doing.
Cheers,
gary
The best thing to do is to look at a lot of good work in different media.
Do not listen to those who make blanket statements like, "Silver prints look better". (They probably have never seen really good ink jet prints). It looks like you might be in Palo Alto (or at least in the bay area) Is that right? If you haven't done so, check out the work of Joel Leivick. I believe he teaches at Stanford. He has made some amazing B&W ink jet prints. I saw some of them a while back at a show in S.F. (forget which gallery) and was impressed.
I like some of your pictures from Yosemite. They seem straight forward and honest. Not striving for the overly dramatic which is what you usually see people doing.
Cheers,
gary
Roger Hicks
Veteran
*I am going to assume, judging from the equipment you listed in your first post that you have the wherewithal financially to do pretty much whatever you want photographically, but do keep in mind that this could very well get expensive.
I am sure a number of people will disagree with me on this, but if you are just planning on setting up to do 8x10's, I'm not sure it would be worth it. On the other hand, if you want to print large, I say go for it, although it will require a bit more time, space, and money. When making 8x10's with 35mm, you can just set up a complete darkroom in the bathroom. When making large prints with 6x7 negatives in a 4x5 enlarger, using the bathroom (as a darkroom
Most of the enlargers I see listed on CL are either 35mm enlargers or 4x5 enlargers, and while I have certainly printed 6x6 on a 35mm enlarger, the film was barely small enough to get a good print without vignetting. With 6x7, I would definitely recommend a 4x5 enlarger.
You should definitely go for it. Pulling a really nice 16x20 glossy fiber print made from a well exposed medium format negative out of the soup is a marvelous feeling.
A bit of contrarianism here:
A bigger neg doesn't necessarily mean bigger prints. I really like the effect that I get by printing 56 x 72mm Linhof '6 x 7 cm' just 3-up. This gives 168 x 216mm, which is almost exactly whole-plate (6-1/2 x 8-1/2 inches). Use the right lens (sharp) and the right film (Ilford Delta 100 is my favourite) and it can be very hard to tell the print from a contact print -- which I find much nicer than just another damn' over-enlarged 16 x 20 inch.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Gary,
Obviously there is a enormous amount of personal taste to take into consideration, but I regularly see the very best ink jet prints that manufacturers can manage, at trade shows. The best of them are very nice indeed, but even so, they very seldom look like silver halide.
Whether you prefer the ink-jet look or the halide look is one question; whether you think your pictures will work better as inkets (even if you like others' ink-jets) is another question again.
When it comes to exhibition photograpy, I see scores of exhibitions at the Arles Rencontres every year, and I've certainly seen a lot more good silver halide than good ink-jet.
Cheers,
R.
Merkin
For the Weekend
I agree, Roger (you always do the best job of disagreeing with me
), Small prints from MF negatives are spectacular in that regard. The two most common sizes at which I print 6x6 negs are 16x16 and 5x5. However, I don't consider 16x20 at all 'over-enlarged' for a 6x7 negative. A 6x7 negative is not quite 5 times larger than a 35mm negative, and a 16x20 sheet of paper is only 4 times larger than an 8x10 sheet of paper. I, for one, don't think 8x10's from 35mm negs are over-enlarged, so I think 16x20 prints from a 6x7 are perfectly reasonable. You can make small prints in a darkroom set up for large ones, but it is much harder to make large prints in a darkroom set up for small ones.Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, I expressed myself wrongly. I meant "another damn' over-enlarged print of one of my own pics": I just don't like 16x20 inch very much.
I often find, too, that tonality remains good up to a maximum of about 4-6x (depending on the film); then deteriorates because of the half-tone effect; then improves again beyond 6-8x (again depending on the film), as the half-tone effect becomes visible in all the mid-tones instead of just the light ones.
Cheers,
R.
I often find, too, that tonality remains good up to a maximum of about 4-6x (depending on the film); then deteriorates because of the half-tone effect; then improves again beyond 6-8x (again depending on the film), as the half-tone effect becomes visible in all the mid-tones instead of just the light ones.
Cheers,
R.
gns
Well-known
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
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
gns
Well-known
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
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