Sparrow
Veteran
what would you do if you moved house? as i did in 1999
Silver vs Ink Jet
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 67
- Views 8K
what would you do if you moved house? as i did in 1999
RichA
Member
16" x 20" capable ink jet = $$$
16" x 20" capable ink jet = $$$
Enlargers can be had (decent ones) that'll do that for about $400, plus another $100 or so for the trays, chemicals. Paper cost is similar to ink jet and processing chemicals cost WAY less than inkjet ink.
16" x 20" capable ink jet = $$$
Enlargers can be had (decent ones) that'll do that for about $400, plus another $100 or so for the trays, chemicals. Paper cost is similar to ink jet and processing chemicals cost WAY less than inkjet ink.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Stewart, I own the house free and clear. Florida allows a homestead exemption for property tax plus they can't by law raise your taxes by more than three percent per year. If I move into another comparable house at this point my property taxes will likely triple. Last year I took advantage of a state program to upgrade my house, new roof, doors, and windows etc. to "current hurricane code". That about cut my storm insurance in half, and if I stay here for seven years the money the state "loaned" me for the upgrades will be forgiven. If I sell or convert the place to a rental property before the seven years is up I have to pay it back. I'm more or less retired, so why would I move? No mortgage, next to no property taxes, a major drop in homeowners insurance, staying here makes too much sense. Plus I got me that great darkroom!
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
This was one of the things I was wondering and you've sort of satisfied my curiosity. High end ink jet paper is pretty expensive but having never bought developing paper of equivalent quality I can't make a comparison ... I do know that ink cartridges for my Epson 2400 are dear and the printer needs to be used regularly to avoid head blockages. I also resent the way the damned thing wastes ink when switching the matt black to photo black by doing this head cleaning dump that it does ... that's a poor design IMO!
I also worry about the learning process of using an enlarger and chemicals ... getting the end result may take several attempts with subsequent waste while no doubt darkroom curmudgeons like Al have the process mapped into their brains by now! Where to dodge ... where to burn ... how much contrast ... what filters etc etc.
The intimidation factor in switching to a wet darkroom is high if you're starting off cold ... it certainly keeps me away at the moment!
chris000
Landscaper
I always think that silver should be better, but the truth is that this is not necessarily the case.
I have never been fortunate enough to have the room for a pemanent darkroom. So when I used to wet print, the hassle of setting everything up, trying to keep the process dust free, cleaning up afterwards and trying to survive a very hot and chemical laden atmosphere when working, always meant that my heart was not really in it.
I was pleased with some of the results I achieved with wet printing, but to be honest the prints I produce on my Epson 2880 on Hahnemulle paper are far superior.
I like the results I get from the combination of film and inkjet printing and I won't be going back to a darkroom.
I have never been fortunate enough to have the room for a pemanent darkroom. So when I used to wet print, the hassle of setting everything up, trying to keep the process dust free, cleaning up afterwards and trying to survive a very hot and chemical laden atmosphere when working, always meant that my heart was not really in it.
I was pleased with some of the results I achieved with wet printing, but to be honest the prints I produce on my Epson 2880 on Hahnemulle paper are far superior.
I like the results I get from the combination of film and inkjet printing and I won't be going back to a darkroom.
Sparrow
Veteran
i owned both, what would you do if you could move to another home you could afford?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Keith, the intimidation factor is why I'm just now learning how to use a very basic scanner/printer combo...LOL It's just so damned easy to stick a negative in the enlarger, focus on the base board, think "hmmm, a #3 filter over all for 12 seconds, dodge this and this for as few seconds, switch to the #0 filter to burn down those highlight areas, do a 1"x5" test strip, decide to give two extra seconds to the final print and POOOOF, there it is. I made my first print in the spring of 1961, bought the enlarger in 1965, and had her trained within months. I blow a bit of cigarette smoke at her on occasion to calm her down (and diffuse the image a bit), but she's a good hard working enlarger. Is that ink jet printer going to still be smiling at you 44 years hence? We each choose the tools we feel most comfortable using.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Stewart, I could afford to move to another house, I just can't see why I'd bother. Also, being "able to afford" doesn't fit in with my parsimonious nature. As my grandfather taught me, a penny saved is worth more than a penny earned. You earn a penny and you owe income tax on it, while the penny saved is earning interest.
redpony
Member
I have a Coolscan 9000 and an Epson 3800 and I think my prints look great--until I compare them to the same negative printed traditionally. The traditional print is more luminous and 3D than what I get from my digital equipment. However the control you gain working digitally makes up for nearly the lionshare of the difference.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I would note that one needs the space to be able to to put in a wet darkroom - a condo bathroom (as I have) is not really enough room to house it.
I have enough "bedroom" space, however, to easily house a good digital darkroom set up - and I didn't have to do any renovations to get it there.
Dave
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Al,
I think what Stewart is saying is - what would you do, if, for example, your house, for some reason or other, suddenly collapsed, became engulfed in flames, blew away with the wind, floated away with a sudden rising tide (you do live in Florida after all 😀) or got zapped by the Borg and you, most definitely, HAD to move.
What would you do then?
Dave
Sparrow
Veteran
PM me your street address and I'll send you a $2 12x18
Sparrow
Veteran
yep, my darkroom is in crates in the garage, has been for 7 or 8 years
Al Kaplan
Veteran
What would I do if the house went bye-bye? Odds are the ex would invite me to move over there for however long it took to get mine rebuilt. Her dogs would love it!
Pablito
coco frío
Yes, inkjet is the devil's tool, no question about it. Worse than his wicked pitchfork. In the darkest reaches of Hell, Epsons and HPs and Canons sit spewing out portraits of his Wickedness with that oh-so fetching demonic smile. And yes, the reds, what rich luscious reds! To make matters worse, the loading dock of Hell is plied high with deliveries of ink jet paper that looks virtually indistinguishable from double weight fiber base paper! For what? For turning out black and white prints that look identical to.... PORTRIGA!!! In the far corner of the Great Hall, Those who have Sinned stand chained, endlessly throwing photographic enlargers into the furnace...Durst, Omega, Beseler....
Meanwhile, up in Heaven, floating on a great Ansel Adams cloud lined with Silver, Our Lord and Saviour is mixing up a sea of Dektol.....
Frankly, I find the Devil a much more interesting and compelling character. Yet Both produce gorgeous prints. Use what you like, what you prefer, what you can afford or think you can afford, or whichever you think is more "spiritual" . I am happy to be able to use both, to have my skills with one inform the other, etc. But isn't this just a silly rhetorical argument? Obvious, as Bill says. Obvious like the endless film vs. digital arguments. Is it an emotionally charged arugement? Beats me as to why?
Meanwhile, up in Heaven, floating on a great Ansel Adams cloud lined with Silver, Our Lord and Saviour is mixing up a sea of Dektol.....
Frankly, I find the Devil a much more interesting and compelling character. Yet Both produce gorgeous prints. Use what you like, what you prefer, what you can afford or think you can afford, or whichever you think is more "spiritual" . I am happy to be able to use both, to have my skills with one inform the other, etc. But isn't this just a silly rhetorical argument? Obvious, as Bill says. Obvious like the endless film vs. digital arguments. Is it an emotionally charged arugement? Beats me as to why?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
There are those amongst us who are Orthodox and those who Protest and those who feel compelled to Evangelize...but some of us refuse to convert. Ag rules!
(The Devil made me write that.)
(The Devil made me write that.)
Last edited:
David William White
Well-known
All of my shooting and darkroom equipment is rather old, but will probably outlive me. On the digital side, there appears to be a constant process of upgrading cameras, scanners, and printers. Seems an expensive proposition to switch.
I also have a darkroom at the cottage. I've got no electricity, but I can still shoot, develop, print (& maybe someday sell) with not a computer for 50 miles.
I also have a darkroom at the cottage. I've got no electricity, but I can still shoot, develop, print (& maybe someday sell) with not a computer for 50 miles.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
That may have been the case some 5-7 years ago when digital was in its infancy (still) - now, that's a different story - the "steps" on upgrades to bodies (there's no need to upgrade lenses once you have good ones) are now minimal and, if anything, somewhat gimmicky. The public still believes, in general, that the more megapixels the better so you have 21 MP and larger full frame DSLRS when, really, 6MP or 8MP is probably suffice if you're comparing it to 24x36mm film.
Scanners? Unless you're going with Imacon, there's hardly any 35mm scanners anymore - Nikon (and maybe the low end Pacific Image or PlusTek) is the only game in town. If you're talking medium format then I doubt you'd need to upgrade any Imacon scanner (but I don't know about those).
Printers? well, again, maybe 5-7 years ago - apparently the latest Epsons (up to the 4800) are incredibly durable and can produce stunning prints - as I said in this thread; my intent is to get a 3800 for my home use - and I'm in a huge city that can offer Giclee as well as other types of printing - I just prefer to have a bit more control over the process for "that look".
That's awesome - but again, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, that's because you have the room to do so - something that, to me, comes at a premium and my intent is not to move to a house unless (and if) a child ever comes along. 🙂
Cheers,
Dave
colker
Well-known
Darkroom is FUN. no need to be intimidated. I can't stand the chemistry anymore though...
jke
Well-known
I wish I had both. There are a lot of things that I do that work just fine printed with inkjet. But not just any inkjet. I have an Epson 2100 that I have pretty well learned inside and out, but when I want an inkjet print oh say, 30"x40" that someone looks at and says Yeowks! I go print on a friend's HP Z3100. B&W or color, that's an amazing printer.
But if I had a darkroom in my apartment, I would print a lot of small 8x10~ B&W prints and shoot a lot more B&W film. And the prints would make people go Yeowks! because they would be small and hand made out of silver on nice paper.
While I find the reproducibility of inkjet printing far easier, I spend about the same amount of time :bang: with each method. YMMV. 🙂
But if I had a darkroom in my apartment, I would print a lot of small 8x10~ B&W prints and shoot a lot more B&W film. And the prints would make people go Yeowks! because they would be small and hand made out of silver on nice paper.
While I find the reproducibility of inkjet printing far easier, I spend about the same amount of time :bang: with each method. YMMV. 🙂
Similar threads
