Silver vs Ink Jet

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
11:36 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
View My Gallery
I wonder how many folks who are shooting film are now scanning and ink jet printing their work rather than using a conventional wet darkroom. More important, I wonder how pleased they are with their work.

The best silver printers I know are now ink jet printers, happy at the greater number of tools that Photoshop, Lightroom, e.t.c. offer them over the wet darkroom. They bring, not only their wet printing experience, but a lot of time printing digitally. Their scanners, computers and printers are top of the line; it is, after all, their job. And they feel they are doing a better job with ink jet than silver.

But, on this forum and others, I hear a lot of talk about how ink jet is the devil’s work and will never equal the quality of a silver print. I also presume that folks who say this have other uses for the 25 to 30 thousand that can easily be dropped on top of the line scanners, computer and printers - and that they have other things to do with their time rather than master a new medium.

My question is this - is ink jet really an inferior system supported by the devil? On the other hand, even if ink jet offers both quality and more creative options, what’s wrong with enjoying a little time in the damp and the dark with a process that has proven it is capable of beautiful results?

Obviously, there is no absolute, correct answer. But it is, for some reason, such an emotionally charged issue, that I’d just like to hear what people think - silver vs. ink jet .
 
For me it's a different process. Not better or worse, just different. Everytime I hear someone say an inkjet looks "just as good as" or "just like a silver print" I wince a little. I wouldn't say a platinum palladium looks like a FB silver print, or a van dyke. They are different processes.

I like the output that I've gotten from the higher end of the ink jet printers. The output is very very good. Especially when working from a decent scan.

With a good rip, and a good inkset, BW (or warmtone, or whatever tone) very high quality (and easily reproducible/consistent editions) prints can be made.

I enjoy darkroom work still. It's meditative, and fun. I like the smells, the process, and frankly, the look that I get from some negs and papers (and processes).

But I also enjoy the level of control, and detail that printing digitally from a good scan gives me.

Ultimately, I take it on an image by image basis. Some images I just feel are right for one medium or another, and treat it accordingly.

Living in a smallish condo in the city, that does more often mean digitally, since I can do more of the work from home, rather than going to the rental lab to print. So the convenience is a factor at the moment. I don't know if that would change considerably if I had easy access to my own darkroom.

Rambling a bit... I guess. Ultimately. I don't see it as an X vs. Y proposition. They are complimentary processes, and the image - or the look of final image - is what drives the decision of which to use.
 
I would agree, but give a pared down version of rogue_designer's analysis. Different beasts. I generally don't print color in the darkroom so there is no direct comparison there. I happen to really like the look and feel of a semi-gloss fiber surface in traditional silver wet prints and have never been as satisfied with my b&w work off an inkjet as I am with silver gelatin. Or maybe a better way to say it is, the inkjet prints I have been most happy with have been on matte paper surfaces and even the best of those will not be as pleasing to my eyes as something with a little luster. With the platinum and silver prints I have on the walls, the image seems to reside "in" the paper rather than "on" the paper as it does with my inkjet prints. I suspect that one's answer to this also has to do with one's own visual education. I grew up looking at gelatin-silver b$w prints and that is what looks "right" to my eye. Interested to hear what others say.

Ben Marks
 
I like the ink jet prints I get (all carbon inks on an Epson R1800) and I've seen inkjet prints far better than mine.
In any case, a wet darkroom is a practical impossibility for me.
 
for neutral b&w I think my HP 8750 beats pretty much everything... pigment on mat fine art papers can be lovely in its own way, but yeah, the surface of a glazed FB traditional print is much niver to my eyes... the the results I get from film scans are *usually* much better than I could ever get in my traditional darkroom.

The people who are most vocal about one being better that the other simply haven't used the other enough to say... or they or just not good at it. Excellent results can be had from both... but once you know your way around PS and all the other hurdles, scanning is probably more often better on most levels.
 
I agree with rogue designer...
one is not better than the other and if it is, the individual is responsible for the better results, not the process.
I prefer the darkroom. I spend too much time on a computer and find no joy in using the "ink-jet" process. I find great joy and satisfaction in film and the final print produced from a darkroom. For me, a lot of joy and happiness comes from working in the darkroom, I believe the final product reflects this. Not so when using PS. I get frustrated and annoyed by sitting at a computer again... the work is rushed (even tho I try to slow down) and the final print just doesnt reflect a "creative" spark... hence my silver prints always look better.
 
Timely question as I have just recently gotten into the darkroom from digital. So far, as a newbie, I am not proficient enough to answer but I can tell you the darkroom is a fun place to be. Watching prints emerge from the developer, setting up the enlarger, etc. has been fun.
I have a lot of inkjet prints that are good but I'm not sure they compare to the stuff I've been getting from the darkroom.

Todd
 
For B&W, I choose silver. I enjoy the process, and it doesn't require the investment of inkjet. For color, I outsource most of my printing. Again, because of the required investment.
 
Wonderful question imho 🙂

I personally develop my own B&W and scan - manipulate (i.e. get rid of dust, adjust mid range contrast and sometimes a mild duotone) in photoshop and then, usually, upload at full res for viewing (over on Flickr).

That said, I have been considering, more and more, a lower end "pro" printer (Epson 3800) because I actually do want some control over B&W printing. I could, as you mentioned Bill, spend a lot more money on a scanner - heck the $20,000-$30,000 you mention merely scratches the surface for some Imacon scanners - and a higher end printer (Some of the really wide format Canon and Epsons are huge money) - but I think I'd be happy with just what I have (Nikon 5000, Mac Pro, NEC 26" monitor and that Epson).

That said, is it comparable to a wet print? I really think, nowadays, it is getting there. About 5 years ago I would have said that it still is better to wet print but for me, now, I prefer working in the light 🙂 I don't want to deal heavily in the chemicals (safe disposal can be a pain in the butt for me), and I just don't have the space (I live in a condo). So for me, the digital printer allows me the best of both worlds option - I still get my film fix but I also get my digital fix as well.

Wet darkrooms are fine and nostalgic for me but I always end up shielding my eyes upon my exit because I spent so much time in the dark 😀

Cheers,
dave
 
I do both darkroom & inkjet prints. I love the look of both of them. However, I don't think they are that comparable. The paper I use is different, the process, and in the end so is the look. They both produce wonderful results, but they don't look the same.
 
I do silver printing and I sometimes get C-prints or inkjet prints done. I do mostly B&W, and I enjoy darkroom work so much that I cannot see myself giving it up in the future. B&W inkjet prints from scanned B&W negatives can look really good, with nice tonality, and detail. The multitude of inkjet papers helps accomplish different looks. I have not had much success with B&W inkjet prints from color digital files.

I am planning to take up color wet printing this summer when I am less busy at work.
 
dcsang said:
Stewart,

Who's servicing those now that Agfa is, well, basically, no longer?

Dave
Click to expand...

they are modified Fuji machines, I think, the colour profiles have "fuji" in the file name


they print better, and cheaper, than I can anyway 🙁


PPS the lab have three now working 16 hours a day, so others feel as I do
 
Last edited:
I bought a color ink cartride for the ink-jet yesterday. Nikki needed some pictures for a school scrapbook, and I made a collage. Not as good as Lab prints, not as good as my old dye sublimation Phaser-IIsdx printer. Okay for a school scrapbook. The ink cartride was more than having 10 rolls of 24 exp color prints done at Sam's club.
 
When I bought this house in the fall of 1967 my first priority was building a dedicated darkroom. By summer of '68 it was operational. There's a 2x7 foot sink along one wall, a counter big enough for two or three enlargers, lots of shelf space, a forced air film dryer which dries the film on the reels with filtered air, lots of timers for every thing, convenient switches for both white and safe lights, a light trapped door, and an air conditoner. My original plans were good. 41 years later everything is just about the way it was then.

At this point I can't see spending the money on equipment for any sort of sophisticated digital output, nor can I see spending (wasting?) the time learning to reinvent the wheel. For B&W I'm staying wet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom