Silver vs Ink Jet

I have a strong preference for the look of Ag wet printing. Though there are times when a damaged negative can turn out better if taken through PS and a scanner/inkjet. I see the two printing processes as creating different looks and often with a similar aim, though not necessarily always.
 
dcsang said:
Al,

I think what Stewart is saying is - what would you do, if, for example, your house...snip...became engulfed in flames, ...snip...and you, most definitely, HAD to move.

What would you do then?

Dave
Click to expand...

Darn, Al disappointed me with his answer. I thought he was going to say he would light up another cigarette and start shooting some color. :D
 
When I first started with photography I did all of my printing in a out dated darkroom with enlargers that made making an 8x10 print was nearly impossible. I then moved to working with an awesome darkroom where I made near perfect 16x20 prints. Yet over the past several years I have fine tuned scanning film and printing with Epson ink jet printers. Using a Nikon 8000 supercool scan and an Epson 11880 I have made prints that are tonally far superior than what most people can do in the darkroom.

The technology for ink jet printers has increased dramatically. The print heads on the redesigned Epson printers can print at high speed 1440 and produce extremely fine detail. A huge improvement has also come from paper companies. I just started printing with Ilfords Silk Fiber Paper, and guess what, it is made from the same paper as their darkroom fiber paper. So, with fine tuning one can make prints that emulate silver printing right down to the paper.
 
benmacphoto said:
So, with fine tuning one can make prints that emulate silver printing right down to the paper.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. Only you can also create unique prints that have a tactile feel and look like double weight b&w prints but with unique and subtle color qualities. You can get prints that look and feel like dye-transfer prints with some of these new papers. You can also print on silk and who knows what else. But anyway, I refuse to take sides. I have two current gallery exhibits (two different bodies of work). I printed one in inkjet (or call it glicée so you can charge more for the prints) and one in the wet darkroom. All good. A great and amazing time for photography. No regrets, no looking back, embrace it all or choose what you like.
 
Marke, I run a roll or two of mostly ISO 200 COLOR FILM through my cameras every week. I shot a roll Wednesday. Walgreens made me 4x6 prints. I scan them and post them on my blog. Lately it's been mostly commentary on city politics, and featuring Monkette, my toy monkey. Two years ago during the last North Miami city elections my blog, www.thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com was getting more hits than the Miami Herald's on-line coverage of the election. Monkette was a guest of honor at Mayor Burns' victory party and a couple of days later the mayor requested her to pose with him in front of one of his large campaign signs in front of Starbucks.

Hey, it's all in fun and the photos aren't great art for sure, but they are COLOR pictures. Monkette insists on it! With May elections coming up and her stellar track record of chairing winning political campaigns she's thinking of increasing her fee this year. She's currently negotiating with two candidates for a city council seat and the mayor's position.
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine I visited this morning has just come back from one of those organised motorcycle tours of northern India and got to spend time in Bhoutan. Aside from digital shots he took a film point and shoot (Leica CM) and a few rolls of XP-2 because he likes black and white. He had the Ilford developed at a reputable Brisbane lab and got 6x4 prints done for each roll. When he showed me the prints I was shocked ... they were really average with incredibly poor tonal range and appear to have been done by one of those Fuji one hour machines that scans your film and puts out very ordinary inkjet prints with exposure adjustments made with whatever default settings lie within the machine ... obviously the printing capabilities of these lab machines doesn't extend to doing decent black and white from monochrome C41!
 
I want both, which means I want silver process to continue, and I'm a little nervous about it, which makes me touchy. Nothing can touch direct analog process. Digital is always translation of fact into language via machine. I like ink jet prints better than photo litho, but less than silver.
 
Well, of course inkjet is the devil's work and will continue to be the spawn of Satan, even if inkjet surpasses the IQ of divine silver prints. ;-)

I've seen some really impressive and gorgeous black and white inkjets. In particular those done on something like Jon Cone's Piezo system. Apparently you can now print on gloss with his system; if you are willing to jump through a few hoops. It is getting to the point where I really have to examine certain b/w prints up close to tell the difference. Behind glass it's sometimes impossible. From a technical standpoint my biggest problem with inkjets is that this very complex process is very poorly documented. There is no single book I know of that will walk you through all the steps needed to produce a truly professional print.

But ironically just as inkjet technology is maturing, there is a new competitor for the ultimate IQ; a twist on an old technology. Ilford has released a glossy black and white silvergelatin fiber paper for machines like the Fuji Lightjet. You can now produce 'real' silver prints, with all the advantages of Photoshop etc.

Metro here in London invented the process with ilford www.metroimaging.co.uk

I went down to Metro last year and they walked me through the process. The output is astonishingly good. I saw a table with dozens of work prints of photos from Nachtwey, Gary Knight, Griffith Jones Phillip and others and they were spectacular.

So, unless you need the convenience and economy of owning your own inkjet setup, this is a real alternative. The only problem is that the Ilford/Metro setup is not widely available. Worldwide there are only a handful of labs doing this and it's not exactly cheap.

Some of the operators in these labs are also guarding the process like it's a black art. One fellow tried to convince me that there was no relaible way to generate an .icc profile for their set up, which of course is total nonsense. Instead I was supposed to just give him my file and he would take care of it. Again, nonsense. I want the image to match what I set up on my calibrated screen at home. I also can't afford to make several test prints, as he tries to dial in the look I'm after.

Personally I'm going to go with the Metro setup. I really prefer the look of glossy silver gelatin fiber paper over anything else. If Jon Cone comes up with a glossy process for his carbon inks I would seriously look in to that and set up a system at home.

I still make wet prints, but only from negs that are relatively straight forward to print. I'm no master printer and anything complex gets done in Photoshop or Nuke and is output digitally.
 
Last edited:
My mate and I, happy together for 30 years, made the final payment on our 30-year mortgage last December (our anniversary month), giving us $1,300 additional disposable income per month and now allowing me to buy additional darkroom paper and chemicals as needed! That means my Leica film cameras and lenses will be producing superb images for decades to come and I can continue to thoroughly enjoy many more darkroom experiences without leaving home.

Terry
 
Perhaps the experience of my friends who are “darkroom nuts” will be of interest and use. They are all professionals, but professionals who, whenever possible, did their own black-and-white, sliver processing and printing. A number of them, the photojournalists, began to use digital early in the game because of deadline and transmission pressures. Although everything from Photoshop to inkjet printers (and the cameras themselves) were far below the level of today’s gear, they began to experiment with inkjet printing, often using the same “black only” setting used for type.

As the computer programs and ink jet printers were getting better, it was getting harder and harder to maintain the wet darkroom. It was getting harder to maintain an inventory of favorite papers, especially exhibition quality graded fibre; stock seemed to be growing more inconsistent. Top of the line enlargers like the big Durst units ceased production and replacement parts were difficult to find. (Without exception, everybody used top-of-the-line, expensive enlargers and put a lot of time into maintaining them. After all, the images from every camera and every lens went through that enlarger. It was THE link in every chain that led to a print.)

The digital cameras, picture processing programs and printers got better. Maintaining a wet darkroom became more expensive and, in some cases, actually saw a drop in quality in equipment and materials. Slowly, and with the regret that anyone has when an old friend slips away, silver printing got left behind.

Film, to a small extent, still stuck around. There was no digital equivalent to the full frame 35 pocket cameras like the Minilux or the Contax. There was no affordable equivalent to the old 8x10 view. And in any format, film negative had greater exposure latitude than digital. So, some folks kept the film portion of their darkrooms; some shot only large formats and stripped down to a three tray outfit that would have made Edward Weston proud. Some closed the darkroom and used CN films with their Minilux and custom darkrooms with their Deardorff.

There were a lot of solutions, none of them perfect. And the final blow came when you realized that if you never shot another frame of film in your life, you still needed an expensive, top quality scanner to make digital prints from your film past. For many, that was the way that “film still stuck around.”

The young professional has no choice but to be digital. It’s brought many advantages. But, it’s been a little rough on the wallet.

Thoughts?
 
I haven't done all that much photography for clients in several years now. I used to do a lot of public relations photography, mostly for people in the political arena. I guess that accounted for 50% of my gross. That's all gone now. There's always somebody in the office with a DSLR or point and shoot. They mostly take lousy pictures but "they're good enough" and "they're free!" People understand the concept of copyright but that doesn't stop them from scanning and making as many prints as they want and not telling you. In theory I'm retired now. When somebody asks me to shoot something I tell them that I still use film and at the end of the shoot I'm going to hand them the unprocessed rolls. They can get it processed and scanned and do whatever they want with it. Just hand me a check for the shoot.

I still have my files of negatives and contact sheets going back half a century and more, and I still have a couple of enlargers set up. This week I have to go through the 1963 and 1964 files and locate and print up some images of Bob Dylan. There were plenty of other photographers at those concerts but the fact that I've kept those files is the important thing.

I'm not sure that today's young photographers will have any accessable images fifty or sixty years later. It just might be rougher on their wallets then than it is now.
 
Last edited:
I gave up on inkjet printing because I didn't print enough to make it cost effective. My heads would always end up getting clogged and it would expend a lot of ink to clean them. I always end up with a disproportionate amount of ink and paper.
All my digital printing is now done in the form of Apple iPhoto books. The results are pretty good and I get more creative control than putting 4x6 prints in a photo album.
Now that I recently bought a townhouse with a laundry room (haven't moved in yet) I'm seriously thinking of putting a semi-permanent darkroom in there. I used to abhor the darkroom when I HAD to use it to print under deadline, but now I'm looking forward to more photography time away from the computer.
 
Fuji Frontier machines do NOT make inkjet prints. The machines uses lasers to expose RA-4 color paper, which the machine processes normally after the digital exposure. The quality can be incredible with a properly set up machine and a good digital file.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think you're right.

The new shooters are an interesting bunch. Many have never shot a frame of film in their life. Others shoot digital, but are also enthusiastic about black and white film. Some scoff at film. Usually these are the ones who would be dead in the water if the auto exposure program on their camera failed, because they don't even know what 18% gray is.

I think digital has been a two edged sword for professionals and photojournalism in particular. The good part is that instant transmission from the field has allowed photography to regain it's competitiveness with TV. On the other hand the extensive automation and instant feedback has turned the ability to make a properly exposed picture in to a commodity. Not everything requires the compositional skills and human insight of a James Nachtwey. In a society that is driven by the bottom line and 'good enough' attitude, that's enough of a reason to toss the Canon G9 to the production assistant and have them shoot something instead of hiring a real photographer.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Perhaps the experience of my friends who are “darkroom nuts” will be of interest and use. They are all professionals, but professionals who, whenever possible, did their own black-and-white, sliver processing and printing. A number of them, the photojournalists, began to use digital early in the game because of deadline and transmission pressures. Although everything from Photoshop to inkjet printers (and the cameras themselves) were far below the level of today’s gear, they began to experiment with inkjet printing, often using the same “black only” setting used for type.

As the computer programs and ink jet printers were getting better, it was getting harder and harder to maintain the wet darkroom. It was getting harder to maintain an inventory of favorite papers, especially exhibition quality graded fibre; stock seemed to be growing more inconsistent. Top of the line enlargers like the big Durst units ceased production and replacement parts were difficult to find. (Without exception, everybody used top-of-the-line, expensive enlargers and put a lot of time into maintaining them. After all, the images from every camera and every lens went through that enlarger. It was THE link in every chain that led to a print.)

The digital cameras, picture processing programs and printers got better. Maintaining a wet darkroom became more expensive and, in some cases, actually saw a drop in quality in equipment and materials. Slowly, and with the regret that anyone has when an old friend slips away, silver printing got left behind.

Film, to a small extent, still stuck around. There was no digital equivalent to the full frame 35 pocket cameras like the Minilux or the Contax. There was no affordable equivalent to the old 8x10 view. And in any format, film negative had greater exposure latitude than digital. So, some folks kept the film portion of their darkrooms; some shot only large formats and stripped down to a three tray outfit that would have made Edward Weston proud. Some closed the darkroom and used CN films with their Minilux and custom darkrooms with their Deardorff.

There were a lot of solutions, none of them perfect. And the final blow came when you realized that if you never shot another frame of film in your life, you still needed an expensive, top quality scanner to make digital prints from your film past. For many, that was the way that “film still stuck around.”

The young professional has no choice but to be digital. It’s brought many advantages. But, it’s been a little rough on the wallet.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
i think you summed it up best. I love my film cameras, but its really resigned to nostalgia and special purpose use these days. Just about the only camera i run film thru for the last year has been an M2 and an Xpan. Now with my m8 (which is by no means perfect), film is relegated to just the xpan!
 
Bill Pierce said:
The digital cameras, picture processing programs and printers got better. Maintaining a wet darkroom became more expensive and, in some cases, actually saw a drop in quality in equipment and materials. Slowly, and with the regret that anyone has when an old friend slips away, silver printing got left behind.

Film, to a small extent, still stuck around. There was no digital equivalent to the full frame 35 pocket cameras like the Minilux or the Contax. There was no affordable equivalent to the old 8x10 view. And in any format, film negative had greater exposure latitude than digital. So, some folks kept the film portion of their darkrooms; some shot only large formats and stripped down to a three tray outfit that would have made Edward Weston proud. Some closed the darkroom and used CN films with their Minilux and custom darkrooms with their Deardorff.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The problem I have as a non-professional photographer is that my darkroom equipment has long ago paid for itself. I could be wrong, but for me at least, the digital / electronic arms race seems more costly. Periodic upgrades in camera bodies, software upgrades when migrating to a newer computer and upgrading or replacing printers aren't a trivial expense for the non-professional photographer.

Inks and paper, which I'll call consumables, are not less than my cost to produce an old-school B/W silver halide print - BUT - they are surely a more rapid way to print - AND - unless you've upgraded your printer and inks to something different, should you want multiple prints at a later date, identical prints are only a few mouse clicks away.

As a photo hobbyist, my personal preference and photo signature is to capture my daily routine as best as I can on 6x9 negs. I've finally run out of APX 25 and have begun using Rolleipan 25. I use either FP4 or ADOX CHS 100 for hand-held. It's more expensive than storing images on a memory card and slow, but the prints are gorgeous. There is no chance that a commercial photographer could make a full-time living with 8 frames to a roll of film.

So, I must fully agree with the purpose of this thread, if I have read its intent correctly. Film and darkroom printing have become a labor of love for many of its current practitioners. However, I hope its practitioners piddle on a while longer.
 
Andrew, it's a matter of perspective (pun intended). While I was still doing a lot of product shots I made the switch from sheet film to 120 roll film in a ten exposure back because it was a lot cheaper and there was no real need to shoot 4x5 for the quality required.

When it comes to B&W I'm also in that position where my stuff is all paid for. I don't think that I've really added to my darkroom equipment since about 1970 except for a new Weston thermometer, and a friend gave me a couple of Time-O-Lite timers, but they're still sitting there unused "just in case". The rest of the things were bought, mostly used, back in the 1960's.
 
Harry Lime said:
In a society that is driven by the bottom line and 'good enough' attitude, that's enough of a reason to toss the Canon G9 to the production assistant and have them shoot something instead of hiring a real photographer.
Click to expand...
All too true. For many aspects of photography. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom