Should I go wet or dry in BW printing.

G

Guest

Guest
OK, I am 54 years of age, used to do my own BW printing thirty years ago, when I moved here from England I sold all of my darkroom stuff. I use 6x6 and 6x9 film, scan on a Nikon 8000ED and do my color on a Epson 4000 printer and get superb results from it but Black and White printing it does not do well.
I have been going back to BW so much that I have been very close to spending $1150.00 on a used darkroom set up but I keep remembering that spotting dust was always a downer in the process and in the end it was hard to get a clean image print. I loved Ilford Gallery paper and I see that it is no longer for sale, I hated resin coated paper, it looked terrible behind glass.
What is out there that would allow me to do GOOD BW prints, is there a printer just for BW out there and I do not need prints as big as the Epson 4000 but 13 or 14 inches wide would give a nice size image for me, that do not look like soot and whitewash when dried.
Please remember that at 54 I am not a computer wizz, so please explain things.
Thank you for your help in this matter,
Cheers for now,
James
 
I personally enjoy spotting a fiber based "wet" print to sitting at the computer spotting a "dry" print in Photoshop. With a Photoflo rinse and canned air, I don't do all that much spotting on most of my "wet" prints. So there is no answer to your question - it's what you prefer.
 
It sounds like your 'used darkroom setups' are way more expensive over there than they are here. Approximately five or ten times more! Ilford galerie is still available and there are plenty of other manufacturers for the less-than-exhibition-standard prints you might want to make. I'd suggest go with a simple setup that you can knock-down into/onto a kitchen trolley or something like that. Make the set-up effort as small as possible and the tidy-up time nice and short. Wet will be cheaper, arguably 'better' and have a shorter learning curve (as you have already had some experience).
 
Galerie is still in production but Ilford MGIV variable contrast paper is so good that most people use it rather than graded papers these days.
There are lots of other B+W papers still available but most have changed from 30 years ago. Cadmium isn't allowed anymore.

Any 6x9 enlarger will work for you. Durst M805 is a good choice and can be had in condensor or diffusion versions.

You may want to consider a Heiland Splitgrade unit which gives a great deal of automation but can be overidden for ultimate control on VC paper. Can be attached to many enlargers but useless for graded papers.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/
http://www.bergger.com/
http://www.fotokemika.net/
http://www.kentmere.co.uk/
http://www.adox.de/english/index.html
http://www.fomausa.com/index.php?p=p
http://www.orientalphotousa.com/
 
Ilford Pearl surface RC seems to display well for me but it may not be to your liking. With care, your spotting problems should be minimal - I usually have somewhere between two and none on prints from 35mm negs. Perhaps the best part about printing in the darkroom is the time you can spend by yourself working on your craft.
 
I am looking at an OMEGA D2 enlarger that is not low priced but has three high end lumps of glass with it and most labs that did 4x5 do not use these big machines anymore.
The Ilford paper I mentioned was not on the web site when I looked, I need to look again.
Do you think that in the long run a wet system will cost less than a dry one. There is an BW ink system that I read about costing $600 that can be used with specific printers, bottles tubes and other stuff. A lot of paper and chemicals can be got with that amount of money.
Obviously the amount printed changes the cost but in general terms is there a cost ratio that has been done between wet and dry printing.
 
For a lot of information on inkjet printing B+W then largeformatphotography.info/forum is probably best resource.
Really depends on whether you are in it for the joy of hand printing or the convenience of inkjet printing and being able to produce multiple copies of a print.
If you are just doing one offs then I doubt there is much difference. But if you are thinking multiple copies then inkjet will save you a lot of time.
 
jmpgino said:
I hated resin coated paper, it looked terrible behind glass.
Click to expand...

I love printing on FB paper - definitely unbeatable - but I want to strike a blow for RC paper also; I recently discovered Rollei Vintage 312, a clone of glorious Agfa MCP 312: once dried it's difficult to tell a FB apart.
 
Wet print if you can. IMHO the results are just that much more appealing.

Spotting is easy if you get the technique right. If you really want to wet print and the spotting issue is your biggest issue, feel happy to PM me and I we can chat through technique on the phone.

I am not arrogant in general, but I am damn good at spotting, bleaching etc and I am quite confident that if you are physically able, you will be able to spot the average 20x16 print in 2-5 mins and the nastiest of the nasty in about 30-60mins (very rare indeed). Its a wonderful technique to get right because it opens up lots of possibility with damaged negs, those suffering form air bell reduced development in spots etc. The materials last pretty well forever too. A few brushes and some inks, some bleach for dealing with dark spots on the print etc.

It goes without saying that if you avoid dust (and this is easy to do) you will have few issues. I mean, if I can achieve this in a garage with unsealed concrete floor, glass carriers and no canned air, then anyone can! About 25% of my prints require almost or actually no spotting and the other 70% take no more than 2-5 mins each.
 
Turtle said:
Wet print if you can. IMHO the results are just that much more appealing.

Spotting is easy if you get the technique right. If you really want to wet print and the spotting issue is your biggest issue, feel happy to PM me and I we can chat through technique on the phone.

I am not arrogant in general, but I am damn good at spotting, bleaching etc and I am quite confident that if you are physically able, you will be able to spot the average 20x16 print in 2-5 mins and the nastiest of the nasty in about 30-60mins (very rare indeed). Its a wonderful technique to get right because it opens up lots of possibility with damaged negs, those suffering form air bell reduced development in spots etc. The materials last pretty well forever too. A few brushes and some inks, some bleach for dealing with dark spots on the print etc.

It goes without saying that if you avoid dust (and this is easy to do) you will have few issues. I mean, if I can achieve this in a garage with unsealed concrete floor, glass carriers and no canned air, then anyone can! About 25% of my prints require almost or actually no spotting and the other 70% take no more than 2-5 mins each.
Click to expand...

Seconded. But try some grey floor paint on the floor.

And to the OP, look at the new Ilford Art FB. Staggering!

Cheers,

R.
 
Home inkjet printing of b/w isn't terribly satisfactory unless you have a printer that can take the special duotone inks (CMYK inks give horrible black-and-white).

I scan the negs and then have prints made commercially on photo paper over the Internet; this doesn't result in odd colours.
 
James, I also used to wet print and then moved to a hybrid workflow: scanning home developed negatives and printing them on my inkjet. I tried one of those dedicated inksets on my Epson 2200 and never got results I liked and on top of that it was a lot of continuous tinkering. I do have a nerdy side so I did enjoy that part of the process, but boy what a difference when I finally got fed up with the whole process and bought an Epson 3800. My B+W prints now look better than I used to be able to get out of my wet darkroom.

If you decide to stick with your Epson 4000 and the original inkset you could also look at using a RIP (Raster Imaging Processing). This software takes over from your printerdriver and gives you a lot more control over the whole printing process and could be useful in getting good B+W prints. It will take a serious effort to master such a program and as you mentioned you are not the computer wizard, it might not be right for you.There are a couple of expensive options, but there is actually a good one that can be found www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRoverview.html.

Paul Roark, http://www.paulroark.com is one of the leaders on the subject of the specialized B+W inksets. You can find a lot of information on his website. http://www.inksupply.com/qn.cfm is a well known supplier of those inksets.

If I were you I would buy the Epson 2880 or something in that size. Switching Epson color inksets with a dedicated B+W inkset involves a lot of work and the risk of serious clogging when you switch back. You are happy with the color results why risk that ?

The Yahoo Digital Black and White printing group is a good resource, but I would also recommend Amadou Diallo's book. Maybe a bit dated, but it gives a very good overview of the whole workflow and after reading it you should have a pretty good idea whether you want to go the digital B+W way or pick up wet printing.
 
Thank you all very much for your help, I will give you a reason for my new found desire for Black and White printing. My Father and Mother committed suicide in England back in 2003, I got my Fathers Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x9, I just could not hold it until last December, I sent it off and had a service done on the shutter and because it was very slippery to hold, had a new covering put on it. So I have been running Ilford stuff through it and while doing so remembering my Father. It has taken eight years but I am so happy even at my age with being able to use it like he did and the quality of the lens is incredible.
I am sure he is shouting at me from above "Go wet James, that is what I bought it for"
Thank you all for bothering to help me in this matter.
James.
 
James, thanks for sharing your story. I'll add my voice to those urging you to return to the darkroom. We are the same age, and I only started about 18 months ago; now have my own dedicated darkroom (which makes dust control easier and reduces spotting tremendously). I'm having a ball, learning more every week, and I love being away from the computer. (I also enjoy digital, but print almost nothing.) You'll love it. Good luck!
 
Well, you twisted my arm gentlemen. I am driving to pick up a Omega D5 XL enlarger tomorrow. It will take up most of the Tahoe but saving on postage on a pallet of 110 Lbs will be worth it.
Those of you who offered help in dust ect areas can expect contact soon.
I rather feel like a small boy again, awaiting a present. A rather nice feeling.
Thank you all once again for your advice and personal feelings in this matter.
kind Regards from,
James.
 
Go James!
Does the Omega have a diffusion head or condenser head?
A diffuser head would eliminate dust spotting even more.

Like Chris, I am (hopefully) soon will have a dedicated darkroom. In which I plan to install a small air-compressor for blowing dust from negatives before printing.
 
there's an old saying that dust is not a problem unless you start moving it around.
A very clean but damp chamoix leather to gently wipe negatives and glass holders is all you need before putting neg in carrier. Dust blowers just get it all airborne.
 
Last edited:
jmpgino said:
Well, you twisted my arm gentlemen. I am driving to pick up a Omega D5 XL enlarger tomorrow. It will take up most of the Tahoe but saving on postage on a pallet of 110 Lbs will be worth it.
Those of you who offered help in dust ect areas can expect contact soon.
I rather feel like a small boy again, awaiting a present. A rather nice feeling.
Thank you all once again for your advice and personal feelings in this matter.
kind Regards from,
James.
Click to expand...

Dear James,

Good on yer! Have fun!

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom