Bill Pierce
Well-known
I know that there are many on this forum that have chosen to stick with film rather than go digital - and many that shoot both film and digital.
But how many are sticking with wet darkroom printing - and why/ I know that collectors may put a premium on silver prints. But that wouldn’t seem to be a major concern to those among us who are not “collectable” and couldn’t give a damn. Many photographers who were concerned with print quality started investigating digital printing early in the game. Richard Avedon would be a good example.
You do have more control over the appearance of the final image. We’re not talking about glitz and cute effects; we’re talking about contrast, brightness, density and the local controls that parallel burning, dodging and bleaching.
Could it be that the wet darkroom is a nice place to hide. I used to get a lot of reading done in mine because when anybody knocked on the door and tried to interrupt me I would just yell, “Dark - Sorry!”
So - do you use a wet darkroom? If so, why? If not, why?
But how many are sticking with wet darkroom printing - and why/ I know that collectors may put a premium on silver prints. But that wouldn’t seem to be a major concern to those among us who are not “collectable” and couldn’t give a damn. Many photographers who were concerned with print quality started investigating digital printing early in the game. Richard Avedon would be a good example.
You do have more control over the appearance of the final image. We’re not talking about glitz and cute effects; we’re talking about contrast, brightness, density and the local controls that parallel burning, dodging and bleaching.
Could it be that the wet darkroom is a nice place to hide. I used to get a lot of reading done in mine because when anybody knocked on the door and tried to interrupt me I would just yell, “Dark - Sorry!”
So - do you use a wet darkroom? If so, why? If not, why?
gho
Well-known
I do not use a wet darkroom because I do not have one! If I had room for a comfortable lab I would use it without hesitation. Just for relaxation, experimentation and enjoyment.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I have tried -a few months ago the last time- to get digital B&W prints from the best lab here: and I mean the best printing technology available today, and the best papers. Even with such a grade of control, to my eye, the blacks and the tonal range are not ones that I like better than those of traditional fiber paper. It's not bad at all, but yet I prefer the wet darkroom look on final prints. Clearly, if one day I saw a digital print surpass my traditional printing looks, I'd leave wet printing. Maybe it's just the taste I like... But I think I am not imagining what I see...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
pesphoto
Veteran
I shoot digital all day in a studio for work. So having my darkroom waiting for me on the weekends is my escape. Ive been building it from the ground up in the basement and it is the one thing I have total control over.
pschauss
Well-known
For me, the initial choice was based on the cost. When I began to get back into photography nine years ago after a 30+ year hiatus I looked at the idea of scanning film and processing the images on my computer. After adding up the cost of a scanner, printer, and an upgrade to my computer it looked to me like I could set up a simple wet darkroom for a good bit less money.
jackbaty
Established
I've recently assembled a darkroom in my basement. It's like magic. The wet prints I get aren't nearly as good as what I can get with some simple image manipulation and a good inkjet printer, but I enjoy them more anyway. It feels like I'm making something.
PlantedTao
Well-known
1. I work at a computer pretty much all day. I get tired of computers and having to look at a screen. A darkroom is a nice break from this.
2. I love film and the capturing process. If I was to go digital, I would give up on film... I don't like the scanning process... seems like you should just start with a digital file to begin with.
3. I love the process of making a print. It is a place to hide... time is very different in a darkroom. It is broken down to seconds and minutes, which to me really seem slower than normal. It still feels magical to me when I see my first print come out of the developer.
4. I like telling others how I made the final print.
Most do not care, but it means a lot to me. The final product brings me a lot of joy.
I willl probably never make money off my photography and do it for myself. I like the darkroom process and the different environment it draws me into. It is a great hobby.
Jason
2. I love film and the capturing process. If I was to go digital, I would give up on film... I don't like the scanning process... seems like you should just start with a digital file to begin with.
3. I love the process of making a print. It is a place to hide... time is very different in a darkroom. It is broken down to seconds and minutes, which to me really seem slower than normal. It still feels magical to me when I see my first print come out of the developer.
4. I like telling others how I made the final print.
Most do not care, but it means a lot to me. The final product brings me a lot of joy.I willl probably never make money off my photography and do it for myself. I like the darkroom process and the different environment it draws me into. It is a great hobby.
Jason
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Wet printing still seems a lot cheaper to me as I'm starting to look into a digital workflow. I can't believe the price of inkjet paper compared to RA4. Different animals to be sure, but plain paper for twice the price (some of it six times the price??).
I love the darkroom. The sound, the safelights when printing B&W, even the total darkness when C-printing- but most of all the tactile part of it- the handling of light as it goes to paper.
I love the darkroom. The sound, the safelights when printing B&W, even the total darkness when C-printing- but most of all the tactile part of it- the handling of light as it goes to paper.
Last edited:
presspass
filmshooter
I work with digital output in our weekly newspapers but still shoot film every week, some for myself and some for the papers [and scan the negs]. But I also print black and white weekly, some for a longterm [35+years] documentation of our volunteer fire company - display prints in the engine rooms and meeting room walls as well as annual books. I enjoy the darkroom, the pace of work, the gratification when it goes right, and even the disappointment when it doesn't. I'm not ready to give any of that up to spend more time in front of a computer screen.
topoxforddoc
Established
I do both dark and light rooms. Depends on timescale and spare time available. I prefer wet printing to dry printing personally.
Ronald M
Veteran
I have many wonderful film Leicas and lenses and it would be a shame not to use them.
Nothing is as cool as a screw mount, nothing as precise as an R, nothing as quick handling as an M. Cost of film is neglible. The darkroom is a place of quiet and relaxation.
I have been working with scanned film & KM5400 original scanner. Grain is prominent
and even if I use TMax 100+D76, it looks nasty on my computer. In fact it looks like 1960 Tri X pushed. Same negs look georgous printed thru Leica enlarging lenses and Focomats.
Color at home is a pain, always has been. I am quite capable, but paper and chems are increasing difficult. I used my Nova slot processor and color is as easy as monochrome once I am set up, but the aforementioned problems remain.
Decent digital came along and that has usually become my medium of choice for color. I do the fun, post process, and have a pro lab make the prints. They worry about chemicals and paper. I just get their profile, and tell them to print without correction. I happen to be using Nikon D700, 200, 40 as appropiate.
When things change and I can no longer have a darkroom, then monochrome conversion from digital is quite credible. I can add grain, make it sharp like rodinal, or mushy like Microdol, vary the blend to keep the grain in the midtones only. I can tone like I no longer can do with real photo paper. Honestly I defy you to tell it had digital origin.
So I willl be sad, but I can live with digi when the time comes. In the meantime, black and white film rules.
Nothing is as cool as a screw mount, nothing as precise as an R, nothing as quick handling as an M. Cost of film is neglible. The darkroom is a place of quiet and relaxation.
I have been working with scanned film & KM5400 original scanner. Grain is prominent
and even if I use TMax 100+D76, it looks nasty on my computer. In fact it looks like 1960 Tri X pushed. Same negs look georgous printed thru Leica enlarging lenses and Focomats.
Color at home is a pain, always has been. I am quite capable, but paper and chems are increasing difficult. I used my Nova slot processor and color is as easy as monochrome once I am set up, but the aforementioned problems remain.
Decent digital came along and that has usually become my medium of choice for color. I do the fun, post process, and have a pro lab make the prints. They worry about chemicals and paper. I just get their profile, and tell them to print without correction. I happen to be using Nikon D700, 200, 40 as appropiate.
When things change and I can no longer have a darkroom, then monochrome conversion from digital is quite credible. I can add grain, make it sharp like rodinal, or mushy like Microdol, vary the blend to keep the grain in the midtones only. I can tone like I no longer can do with real photo paper. Honestly I defy you to tell it had digital origin.
So I willl be sad, but I can live with digi when the time comes. In the meantime, black and white film rules.
mathomas
Well-known
I like the idea of a wet darkroom, but it's just not in the cards for me. We don't have the room or dedication to do it.
On a related note:
Out of curiosity I ran an experiment. I ordered an 8x10" wet/optical print of one of my B&W negs from my local pro photo shop. My intention was to compare the wet print to the output from my (very) run-of-the-mill photo printer (Canon MP610, printing from a neg scan from the same lab). Well, to my surprise, there is no comparison -- my wife and I both vastly prefer what I was able to do with a basic photo printer.
Of course, my digital print was lovingly hand-adjusted by me in Aperture and Nik Silver Efex, and whatever the lab did was in essence only a proof, given that they had no printing instructions whatsoever other than cropping. Still, this proved to me that since I'm never going to have a wet darkroom, the digital print is the way to go for me.
Now to figure out how to do archival digital printing, should I decide to try to sell some prints someday.
On a related note:
Out of curiosity I ran an experiment. I ordered an 8x10" wet/optical print of one of my B&W negs from my local pro photo shop. My intention was to compare the wet print to the output from my (very) run-of-the-mill photo printer (Canon MP610, printing from a neg scan from the same lab). Well, to my surprise, there is no comparison -- my wife and I both vastly prefer what I was able to do with a basic photo printer.
Of course, my digital print was lovingly hand-adjusted by me in Aperture and Nik Silver Efex, and whatever the lab did was in essence only a proof, given that they had no printing instructions whatsoever other than cropping. Still, this proved to me that since I'm never going to have a wet darkroom, the digital print is the way to go for me.
Now to figure out how to do archival digital printing, should I decide to try to sell some prints someday.
Last edited:
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Juan -
I promise you that you can get digital prints that are on the same level of quality that you can get with silver. But....
In all probability you are going to have to make the prints yourself, on top flight equipment and with a significant amount of experience under your belt. Woops, that's also usually what you have to do to get a good silver print.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thank you for your words, Bill...
I do use digital black and white prints too, of course... For example I make a lot of grayscale (and photoshop toned) poster size prints for gifts (family and friends) on common pro lab color paper, and I like them and my relatives and friends feel they're great prints and what's more important, they enjoy those photographs a lot in that size...
Some other times, I have seen myself in the need of processing contrast digitally from a nice shot that wasn't perfectly exposed, so to go beyond the somewhat more limited options offered by my darkroom, I have gone to high quality digital B&W printing, for example for a customer who's used to wet prints and wouldn't enjoy a photograph on normal color paper for digital grayscale files... And the last time I did it, I must admit the paper and results were surprisingly good... Very close to wet printing. I think it was a digital matt Bergger paper... The lab owner's very friendly and knows me well a lot of years ago, and smiling he told me soon I was going to accept 100% digital B&W printing, and I guess you're right, Bill: the change is happening, or maybe happened already, and the quality is here, and as you say, it requires new efforts from a learning point of view, and requires some investment too... So, you're right.
But sometimes, when a negative's great, wet prints look almost magical... Don't they?
Cheers,
Juan
Greg M.
Member
Bill Pierce sez...
"So - do you use a wet darkroom? If so, why? If not, why?"
I maintain a sink, and the various tanks and reels... I shoot a fair amount of B&W film, because I just love my old film cameras, so... and I like the look and feel of the film images, and I enjoy the road that Craft takes me along... and if my friends/family/The Boy Scouts (my son is a Scout, and I make pictures of him and his Pals 'n Buds) can't wait for the pix... I just shrug and smile.
I don't print, anymore... I scan the negs, and use the marvelous and wonderful Internet to send them 'round, or have them printed (ftp to a shop with a Fuji printer), or publish them myself, in my various Web "places".
I haven't actually made a silver print since 2001... I still have my Big Blue Besseler, with the motor that screws up televisions, up and down my half of the block, that I live on... but it stays unused. I'm sure that the half-dozen bags of Dektol that I have around are nicely brown, now (I prop open the porch door with an OOOOLD five-pound can of Dektol, that once belonged to the Boston Bureau of United Press International)...
I can make a scan that looks REALLY nice, not quite up to my best prints... but the Average Scan is better than
my Average Newspaper/Wire Service Print ever was. I can tailor my negatives to the scanner, during exposure and development, in much the same way as I might have tailored my negatives to a particular paper, or enlarger.
The only downside of shooting B&W film, is that... every once in a while... a client, or potential client, might see a picture that I've made in B&W, and call to see if, "We can get that in color...".
Then again, they always called and asked the same question, when I was shooting nothing but B&W at UPI, back in the early '80s...
Greg.
"So - do you use a wet darkroom? If so, why? If not, why?"
I maintain a sink, and the various tanks and reels... I shoot a fair amount of B&W film, because I just love my old film cameras, so... and I like the look and feel of the film images, and I enjoy the road that Craft takes me along... and if my friends/family/The Boy Scouts (my son is a Scout, and I make pictures of him and his Pals 'n Buds) can't wait for the pix... I just shrug and smile.
I don't print, anymore... I scan the negs, and use the marvelous and wonderful Internet to send them 'round, or have them printed (ftp to a shop with a Fuji printer), or publish them myself, in my various Web "places".
I haven't actually made a silver print since 2001... I still have my Big Blue Besseler, with the motor that screws up televisions, up and down my half of the block, that I live on... but it stays unused. I'm sure that the half-dozen bags of Dektol that I have around are nicely brown, now (I prop open the porch door with an OOOOLD five-pound can of Dektol, that once belonged to the Boston Bureau of United Press International)...
I can make a scan that looks REALLY nice, not quite up to my best prints... but the Average Scan is better than
my Average Newspaper/Wire Service Print ever was. I can tailor my negatives to the scanner, during exposure and development, in much the same way as I might have tailored my negatives to a particular paper, or enlarger.
The only downside of shooting B&W film, is that... every once in a while... a client, or potential client, might see a picture that I've made in B&W, and call to see if, "We can get that in color...".
Then again, they always called and asked the same question, when I was shooting nothing but B&W at UPI, back in the early '80s...
Greg.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Yes, I do...I started in high school and have never left it...
I find that shooting, developing film and printing are all part of my B&W photography...I enjoy all three parts equally...
Being able to think about camera "A" loaded with film "B" dipped in developer "C" then printed on paper "D" is what keeps it fresh and exciting...
When I started way back when, all three parts were there maybe if when I started all I did was take the picture it would be different for me now...I'm glad it was there in the beginning...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
My Epson R2400 currently gives me results for black and white, which is all I print, that I'm pretty happy with. I generally get a print exactly how I want it first time so there is little wastage of ink or paper, both of which aren't exactly cheap!
I would like to wet print but I'm hesitant about costs and I don't mean the costs of producing a beautiful black and white fibre print but the costs of the inevitable throw aways to get to that stage.
If I had money to burn I wouldn't hesitate!
I would like to wet print but I'm hesitant about costs and I don't mean the costs of producing a beautiful black and white fibre print but the costs of the inevitable throw aways to get to that stage.
If I had money to burn I wouldn't hesitate!
Frankd
Established
I like other above do digital photography all day for work and find myself in front of a computer screen much of the time. For my personal work I prefer film--mostly B&W these days. I like working in a wet darkroom--quiet, with a good stereo going and taking my time to get the prints I want. I enjoy the craft and change of pace. When on the computer one is subject to distractions.
I'll admit that I can get some good B&W prints off of my Epson 3800 but I still prefer the process and craft of optical printing. Color is a different matter. Since I lost my access to a wet color lab I have been doing mostly printing color off of the Epson with scanned negatives.
I'll admit that I can get some good B&W prints off of my Epson 3800 but I still prefer the process and craft of optical printing. Color is a different matter. Since I lost my access to a wet color lab I have been doing mostly printing color off of the Epson with scanned negatives.
Vics
Veteran
I've been shooting Tri-X, developing it myself in D-76, and printing it with Dektol since 1969. It's just in the last 10 years that it's really coming together for me. It has never occurred to me to change anything without a good reason. I've been using PCs at work ever since they came on the market. I never wanted to work at a computer for my photography.
Vic
Vic
mathomas
Well-known
I'm envious of you guys with darkrooms but I don't think I'm hard-core enough to justify one for myself. When I was growing up in the 70s I was lucky to have neighbors who had a full darkroom and the nice cameras (Rollei, Nikon F, Hasselblad) to go with it. I had a lot of fun with one of that neighbor's kids shooting and then doing prints in their darkroom, so I can certainly appreciate the process.