Bill Pierce
Well-known
I don't know if we have ever had a specific thread that espoused inkjet printing as the devil's work, but in any number of threads it comes up as sidebar with the warning that inkjet will destroy, humiliate and, finally, eliminate digital photographers - especially those that work in black-and-white. It is loudly proclaimed that no inkjet print can equal the beauty of a silver print.
With it becoming more and more difficult to obtain not only a broad range of silver papers but everything from top quality enlargers to photochemistry and even film itself, it's good to know this isn't true. That's not to knock silver. Look at the latest work of Lee Friedlander in his book America By Car - Hasselblad Superwide, Ilford HP5, Microdol X and absolutely superb silver printing. For him to move to digital wouldn't make sense. Where is the digital equivalent of the Superwide, the latitude and range of black-and-white film and, more important for a photographer of long term projects, the time to master a craft to replace an equally suitable craft of which you are already a master?
That is not to say, however, that silver is better than digital. For many purposes, digital is superior. But one thing must be made absolutely clear. Those entering digital through a hybrid system, shooting film, scanning and printing inkjet, will have to use large format film or limit themselves to small prints unless they buy an expensive scanner like the Hasselblad (Imacon) scanners. That's not a death blow. Edward Weston used a big camera and limited himself to small prints. But it does mean folks with decades of archived 35mm negatives are not going to find a good dry darkroom cheap.
The early problems of digital, such as what looked like chromatic aberration at the edge of the frame, low pixel count and low bit count, are, in many cases for all practical purposes, solved. And we're still early in the development of digital. Medium format cameras are giving us image quality previously associated with large format film. 35MM is looking like medium format and miniature formats are looking like 35MM. Inkjet prints are longer lasting than the best of the chemical color prints and much longer lasting than most of the chemical color prints. Henry Wilhelm says the b&w inkjets will probably last 3 or 4 times as long as the color.
One of the biggest problems I see in digital is that simply stripping a digital image of its color does not produce a b&w image with the same tone structure as a silver print from a silver negative. Those who master b&w inkjet printing either from scanned negatives or converted camera files are going to have to manipulate the curves in programs like Lightroom and Photoshop. I suggest an add-on program like Silver Efex Pro from Nik software. In converting color images to b&w, it does nothing that you can't do with Lightroom or Photoshop itself, but it does give you an idea of what curve manipulation can do to mimic a silver image.
Digital has given us amazing quality at high ISO's. Programs like Lightroom and Photoshop have given us abilities to control our prints that have made many of the best wet darkroom printers the biggest fans of these programs and the dry darkroom.
Most important, film and the wet darkroom has been around a long time and progress is slowing, not only because of the time frame, but because manufacturers' researchers have less incentive to improve something whose market share is diminishing. On the other hand, digital is still early in its run. Our photographic tools will benefit and improve from that just as our wallets suffer.
This is definitely a rant. I just wanted to point out that digital is not the spawn of evil beings. Like all old dudes, I love film and the wet darkroom. But, in many ways, not all ways, digital offers advantages that in numerous fields guarantees that it will replace film.
Any thoughts?
With it becoming more and more difficult to obtain not only a broad range of silver papers but everything from top quality enlargers to photochemistry and even film itself, it's good to know this isn't true. That's not to knock silver. Look at the latest work of Lee Friedlander in his book America By Car - Hasselblad Superwide, Ilford HP5, Microdol X and absolutely superb silver printing. For him to move to digital wouldn't make sense. Where is the digital equivalent of the Superwide, the latitude and range of black-and-white film and, more important for a photographer of long term projects, the time to master a craft to replace an equally suitable craft of which you are already a master?
That is not to say, however, that silver is better than digital. For many purposes, digital is superior. But one thing must be made absolutely clear. Those entering digital through a hybrid system, shooting film, scanning and printing inkjet, will have to use large format film or limit themselves to small prints unless they buy an expensive scanner like the Hasselblad (Imacon) scanners. That's not a death blow. Edward Weston used a big camera and limited himself to small prints. But it does mean folks with decades of archived 35mm negatives are not going to find a good dry darkroom cheap.
The early problems of digital, such as what looked like chromatic aberration at the edge of the frame, low pixel count and low bit count, are, in many cases for all practical purposes, solved. And we're still early in the development of digital. Medium format cameras are giving us image quality previously associated with large format film. 35MM is looking like medium format and miniature formats are looking like 35MM. Inkjet prints are longer lasting than the best of the chemical color prints and much longer lasting than most of the chemical color prints. Henry Wilhelm says the b&w inkjets will probably last 3 or 4 times as long as the color.
One of the biggest problems I see in digital is that simply stripping a digital image of its color does not produce a b&w image with the same tone structure as a silver print from a silver negative. Those who master b&w inkjet printing either from scanned negatives or converted camera files are going to have to manipulate the curves in programs like Lightroom and Photoshop. I suggest an add-on program like Silver Efex Pro from Nik software. In converting color images to b&w, it does nothing that you can't do with Lightroom or Photoshop itself, but it does give you an idea of what curve manipulation can do to mimic a silver image.
Digital has given us amazing quality at high ISO's. Programs like Lightroom and Photoshop have given us abilities to control our prints that have made many of the best wet darkroom printers the biggest fans of these programs and the dry darkroom.
Most important, film and the wet darkroom has been around a long time and progress is slowing, not only because of the time frame, but because manufacturers' researchers have less incentive to improve something whose market share is diminishing. On the other hand, digital is still early in its run. Our photographic tools will benefit and improve from that just as our wallets suffer.
This is definitely a rant. I just wanted to point out that digital is not the spawn of evil beings. Like all old dudes, I love film and the wet darkroom. But, in many ways, not all ways, digital offers advantages that in numerous fields guarantees that it will replace film.
Any thoughts?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
(Highlight) Sure.
Well, not entirely.
It is all too easily embraced by those who do not realize what a good silver halide image can look like, and how awful it makes the average inkjet print look.
But exactly the same is true of silver halide: many beginners do not realize what a good silver halide image can look like, and how awful it makes the average silver halide print look.
And I'm not alone in being slightly suspicious about Henry's projections about print life, based on accelerated ageing.
Cheers,
R.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Roger -
Hooray for pointing out that it takes a good printer to make a good print. Sounds obvious, but Edward Weston was criticized for using Azo, a paper intended for photofinishing and Gene Smith for using High Speed Varigam when "everybody" knew that regular Varigam was better. In those cases there was a lot of talk about the printing material and not too much about the printer.
As to Henry's figures, I think Henry would say that the numbers are relative and different storage and exhibition conditions mean that his figures can only be relative indications of when noticable fading occurs and, hopefully, lead us to intelligent selection of materials and sensible storage and exhibition. I think what's important is that it is possible to make silver and inkjet images that are long lasting and that Crystal Archive really leads the pack when it comes to chemical color prints, but inkjet can beat it.
Hope all is well at your end.
Bill
gdmcclintock
Well-known
The portrait I use as my avatar is perhaps the best photograph I have ever made, taken on Tri-X with a Rolleiflex more than 30 years ago that I used to print on Agfa Brovira paper. For years I have not had the time or financial resources to maintain a darkroom, thus I scan my negatives and chromes and print the digital files on Museo Silver Rag paper. A young art student who shoots only film and belittles digital processes thought my digital print was the product of a wet darkroom! Oh yes I shoot with film and digital cameras too. I may not be a master printer in wet or dry darkrooms, but I cannot afford to nourish an anti-digital prejudice!
wintoid
Back to film
Coming at this the other way around, I work with computers, and digital is responsible for rekindling my interest in photography about 7 years ago. I like black and white, and have tried really hard to get my digital stuff up to snuff. I have been 50:50 digital vs scanned film, but recently assembled a darkroom.
First of all, regarding equipment/paper availability, it's like heaven. Great kit is being chucked away left right and centre. Paper seems to be no problem, but so far I am quite happy with Ilford MGIV RC.
As for results, well I've been doing wet darkroom stuff for less than a month, and my prints are better than my inkjet prints after 7 years of effort. I'm also finding that the more time I put into a print, the better it gets. With digital, I often find I work on an image for ages, and it gradually gets worse
Just my perspective. I am platform agnostic, but gradually getting sucked into the church of silver.
First of all, regarding equipment/paper availability, it's like heaven. Great kit is being chucked away left right and centre. Paper seems to be no problem, but so far I am quite happy with Ilford MGIV RC.
As for results, well I've been doing wet darkroom stuff for less than a month, and my prints are better than my inkjet prints after 7 years of effort. I'm also finding that the more time I put into a print, the better it gets. With digital, I often find I work on an image for ages, and it gradually gets worse
Just my perspective. I am platform agnostic, but gradually getting sucked into the church of silver.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I have had a LOT of traditionalist snobs insist that scanning and inkjet suck and that its IMPOSSIBLE to surpass silver. Humbled them fast when they saw my prints and learned they were scans with a Nikon scanner and Epson prints. Most people don't have the photoshop skill to get good digital. I was a GOOD silver printer. It took me years to surpass that with a scanner/photoshop/epson but it is surpassed in my work.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Wet dark rooms will be the domain of the 'art photographers' and serious amateurs. I know of several big name Canadian photographers who could choose wet printing who are exhibiting inkjet prints. It's not going away. Those who appreciate the image from silver prints will be talking to rich 20 to 30 somethings who will not care and have shown it by supporting photography galleries presenting both print methods.
Chacun a son gout.
Chacun a son gout.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Hybrid system gave me opportunity to go back to B&W aftere many years of only slides, considering that I have no place/opportunity to set a wet darkroom. But my previous experience of wet printing and choices related to it in order to obtain "the image" has been very helpful to me during the learning curve of the LR or PS preparation of the file to be printed. Many digital born photographers think it is enough to push a few keys on the keyboard and print B&W. It is not like that: you need to see the picture, which areas need to be a little lighter, which one need to be a little darker, etc etc and it is not easy.
To get a good result you need time and dedication both with wet or dry printing. It is part of what makes photography a nice and interesting activity.
robert
To get a good result you need time and dedication both with wet or dry printing. It is part of what makes photography a nice and interesting activity.
robert
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Nicely said, Robert. Thanks
Chris101
summicronia
I like digital printing as much as the next guy (I use an Epson 7800) but don't see the need to put it into a "versus" situation as this thread does. Digital printing (and computer based image preparation) is very different from chemical printing/toning. With two different media, comparisons cannot be made one-for-one..
pluton
Well-known
I have seen silver prints that were really, really good. I have not personally seen inkjets that good YET, but they may/probably exist somewhere. In my own digi-inkjet world, finding an inkjet paper that has the magic of a good silver paper is what I haven't seen...yet. But I like my dry darkroom just fine, and I feel good about not dumping Metol and SodiumThiosulfate into the public sewer, which in my area drains to the Pacific Ocean.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I often explained to those who ask:
Darkroom printing is like calligraphy,
digital printing is like writing a book.
Both can produce masterpieces or junk, but each demands a different set of discipline.
Therefore you can't say one is better than the other as a general term.
You can, however, prefer one over the other. I came from digital, but I much prefer printing using silver. And surprisingly, the number of paper and chemical to choose from seems to stabilize if not increasing a bit these days.
Darkroom printing is like calligraphy,
digital printing is like writing a book.
Both can produce masterpieces or junk, but each demands a different set of discipline.
Therefore you can't say one is better than the other as a general term.
You can, however, prefer one over the other. I came from digital, but I much prefer printing using silver. And surprisingly, the number of paper and chemical to choose from seems to stabilize if not increasing a bit these days.
kzphoto
Well-known
Have any of you tried Quad Tone Rip? (QTR) Link here: http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRoverview.html
Used it in school rather extensively (with the larger format epson printers), and it takes the work out of making decent black and white inkjet prints. It's also really great at eliminating bronzing / metamerism.
Used to be that the program was free, looks like it's $50 now!
Used it in school rather extensively (with the larger format epson printers), and it takes the work out of making decent black and white inkjet prints. It's also really great at eliminating bronzing / metamerism.
Used to be that the program was free, looks like it's $50 now!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Try Ilford Gold Fiber Silk. Its a fiber base glossy paper that looks identical to regular fiber glossy silver papers.
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
I was about to pull the trigger on the whole scanner-and-inkjet thing after seeing some really good b&w inkjet prints, but then Adox brought back the Agfa MCC paper I always used and loved. And then Nikon dicontinued the scanner I was getting ready to buy. The wet darkroom still works better for me, and frankly after humping a computer at work all day, the last thing my eyes need is another session staring at a monitor. Long as it lasts...
What is Friedlander going to do now that Microdol X is going away? I'd love to see the prints from "America by Car," but the book is really worth getting. I find something new every time I open it.
What is Friedlander going to do now that Microdol X is going away? I'd love to see the prints from "America by Car," but the book is really worth getting. I find something new every time I open it.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Friedlander shops at Fotocare, a unique store in NYC that is also clearing house for the exchange of information, lecture hall for the experts, rental source for the needy and place of calm and quiet for the well-known - truly the best camera club in town. When the boss, Jeff Hirsch, heard Microdol X was going away, he stocked 500 1 gallon units for his two customers that use it. He and the store have done a lot of special things to help individual photographers, sadly, a relatively unique position in a business that is becoming more and more impersonal almost out of necessity.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I find that overall the papers available today are certainly better than what I learned to print on. Adox MCC, the Adox Vario-warmtone are easily the equal of the old Oriental Seagull in the blue box, and VC to boot. Ilfords VC offerings are miles better than what was around in the early 80s.
I stopped wet printing color when Endura in sheets was discontinued, after testing Fuji Crystal Archive and finding out that the Mono chemistries were also then gone. Inkjet is miles better hands down. My current color prints are better than I was ever able to make on RA4 paper.
I do quite enjoy the darkroom, and will continue to shoot B&W film and wet print it as long as I can. I don't much care what method anybody else uses, I just like what I get on paper- and I really love the process.