PaulN
Monkey
Hi folks,
I recently got back into film after an 8 year stint with digital and am contemplating a wet darkroom to print pics. I don't really have much room in my apartment at the moment, but think that I can swing something during the warmer months of the year. Before I make the leap, can someone with extensive wet-print experience talk me out of this? From what I see of traditional wet prints, I am always floored. The sturdy paper, the solid blacks, the tonality, etc. My attempts at this with an old epson 1270 with the quadtone inks just do not compare. I'm also annoyed with the printer; dust, streaks, etc. I also love the look of the fuzzy edges on wet prints. Inkjet is too rigid.
With regards to print quality, what is the best these days? Should I invest in a newer printer? Better papers? Better inks? I'm on OSX, do I need to make the plunge and invest in the ImagePrint RIP (or whatever it is called, I forget).
From a cost perspective, what wins? I'm guessing inkjet. Actually, I'm guessing on-line prints. I don't mind using online printers, but sometimes, I just want to print a pic and hold it in my hand... Waiting for the post to arrive, with a potentially folded package, is tedious..
You folks got me into Tri-X souped in Diafine. How do I get the best prints?
-Paul
Also, whats the deal with scanning the negatives and printing via inkjet? Increase grain, due to the fact that the scanner captures every single crystal? Has anyone performed a side by side comparrison? Soup the film; make a wet print, and then scan the neg and inkjet a print? I'd love to see which won.
I recently got back into film after an 8 year stint with digital and am contemplating a wet darkroom to print pics. I don't really have much room in my apartment at the moment, but think that I can swing something during the warmer months of the year. Before I make the leap, can someone with extensive wet-print experience talk me out of this? From what I see of traditional wet prints, I am always floored. The sturdy paper, the solid blacks, the tonality, etc. My attempts at this with an old epson 1270 with the quadtone inks just do not compare. I'm also annoyed with the printer; dust, streaks, etc. I also love the look of the fuzzy edges on wet prints. Inkjet is too rigid.
With regards to print quality, what is the best these days? Should I invest in a newer printer? Better papers? Better inks? I'm on OSX, do I need to make the plunge and invest in the ImagePrint RIP (or whatever it is called, I forget).
From a cost perspective, what wins? I'm guessing inkjet. Actually, I'm guessing on-line prints. I don't mind using online printers, but sometimes, I just want to print a pic and hold it in my hand... Waiting for the post to arrive, with a potentially folded package, is tedious..
You folks got me into Tri-X souped in Diafine. How do I get the best prints?
-Paul
Also, whats the deal with scanning the negatives and printing via inkjet? Increase grain, due to the fact that the scanner captures every single crystal? Has anyone performed a side by side comparrison? Soup the film; make a wet print, and then scan the neg and inkjet a print? I'd love to see which won.
Finder
Veteran
Scanners cannot resolve the grain in film. You can see the affect of grain in the scan, but not the grain itself.
I have a darkroom. I believe it is the best way to get the most from a negative. And it is easy to print up to 20x24.
An inkjet printer is certaily convenient. How cheap depends how many prints you make. For an occasional print it is a good option. Just like a darkroom, you will need to learn to get the best out of your scanner/computer/monitor/printer system.
But it is no good having either system if you don't use it or are not satified with it. Many people don't like the bother of a darkroom, but if you are not getting the quality you want out of a printer, than that can be equally frustrating. It is a personal choice.
I have a darkroom. I believe it is the best way to get the most from a negative. And it is easy to print up to 20x24.
An inkjet printer is certaily convenient. How cheap depends how many prints you make. For an occasional print it is a good option. Just like a darkroom, you will need to learn to get the best out of your scanner/computer/monitor/printer system.
But it is no good having either system if you don't use it or are not satified with it. Many people don't like the bother of a darkroom, but if you are not getting the quality you want out of a printer, than that can be equally frustrating. It is a personal choice.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
All strictly my opinion, but based on a lot of personal experience:
-- For black-and-white, if you're shooting wet-process negatives, you'll get the best quality from wet-process prints. There are some subtle nuances of image structure and tonal range that get lost in the extra conversion steps of going from analog to digital (in the scanner) and then back to analog (in the printer.) However, it takes some craft knowledge to get the most out of the wet-print process, and if you're not willing or able to invest the time to gain that knowledge, you may find you're more satisfied with inkjet prints, which can be quite good. (Incidentally, I think your Epson 1270 is still about as good as anything in terms of b&w print quality; the improvements in more recent models have been more in the areas of print longevity and media versatility.)
-- This may surprise you, but I feel that the costs involved are roughly equal, assuming you have equal expectations of quality. If you're satisfied with "usable" prints, you can get what you want on the first try with either inkjet or darkroom processing. If you want really high-quality prints with specific expressive qualities, you'll go through a lot of materials on tweaking and re-printing no matter which process you use. Because of this, I think the cost comes out to be roughly a wash.
-- For me, the real killer of the hybrid analog/digital workflow (shooting negatives, scanning them, and making inkjet prints) has been the extra time required to do the scanning and file cleanup. To oversimply only slightly, in my experience it takes a certain amount of time -- let's call it X -- EITHER to shoot film and make wet prints, OR to shoot digitally and make inkjet prints. (For me, X depends less on the process I use and more on my quality-level goal; the better the result I want, the longer it takes.)
However, if I'm trying to shoot film, scan, and make inkjet prints, I'm having to do most of both processes (film and processing, then scanning, then scan file cleaning, then inkjet printing) so overall it will take almost 2*X amount of time. I can make this work for an occasional image here and there, but I can't afford the extra time expenditure for projects that involve a lot of photography; for that, I have to stick either to all-digital or all-analog.
-- For black-and-white, if you're shooting wet-process negatives, you'll get the best quality from wet-process prints. There are some subtle nuances of image structure and tonal range that get lost in the extra conversion steps of going from analog to digital (in the scanner) and then back to analog (in the printer.) However, it takes some craft knowledge to get the most out of the wet-print process, and if you're not willing or able to invest the time to gain that knowledge, you may find you're more satisfied with inkjet prints, which can be quite good. (Incidentally, I think your Epson 1270 is still about as good as anything in terms of b&w print quality; the improvements in more recent models have been more in the areas of print longevity and media versatility.)
-- This may surprise you, but I feel that the costs involved are roughly equal, assuming you have equal expectations of quality. If you're satisfied with "usable" prints, you can get what you want on the first try with either inkjet or darkroom processing. If you want really high-quality prints with specific expressive qualities, you'll go through a lot of materials on tweaking and re-printing no matter which process you use. Because of this, I think the cost comes out to be roughly a wash.
-- For me, the real killer of the hybrid analog/digital workflow (shooting negatives, scanning them, and making inkjet prints) has been the extra time required to do the scanning and file cleanup. To oversimply only slightly, in my experience it takes a certain amount of time -- let's call it X -- EITHER to shoot film and make wet prints, OR to shoot digitally and make inkjet prints. (For me, X depends less on the process I use and more on my quality-level goal; the better the result I want, the longer it takes.)
However, if I'm trying to shoot film, scan, and make inkjet prints, I'm having to do most of both processes (film and processing, then scanning, then scan file cleaning, then inkjet printing) so overall it will take almost 2*X amount of time. I can make this work for an occasional image here and there, but I can't afford the extra time expenditure for projects that involve a lot of photography; for that, I have to stick either to all-digital or all-analog.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I think a key point here is that, to get the most out of either process, you need to spend some time honing the system. Which means 2 things:
1 - if you already have some famliarity with one method or the other, you will get the results you're after by sticking with that method. So if you already know your way around a wet darkroom, considering going that way.
2 - if you do put in the time, you can get equally good results from an inkjet as with wet prints. I truly believe that.
oh, and with an inkset such as the MIS UT2 in your 1270, you can get prints that are damn close to wet prints using the right combination of paper and software.
allan
1 - if you already have some famliarity with one method or the other, you will get the results you're after by sticking with that method. So if you already know your way around a wet darkroom, considering going that way.
2 - if you do put in the time, you can get equally good results from an inkjet as with wet prints. I truly believe that.
oh, and with an inkset such as the MIS UT2 in your 1270, you can get prints that are damn close to wet prints using the right combination of paper and software.
allan
eskorpid
Member
Hi Paul,
Although not very familiar with the digital process I would also consider another dimension to your thinking. Wet printing has reached its limits both technology-wise and technique-wise. I wouldn't expect any signigicant improvements in the forthcoming years, given that most manufacturers have moved all their R&D recourses to digital process development.
Just keep in mind that investing largely in a wet darkroom (time & effort) you might end up in a few years from now moving to an all-digital, all-standardised, all-easy-peasy process that would be convinient, relatively time-efficient and would certainly produce consistent results.
cheers
Nondas
Although not very familiar with the digital process I would also consider another dimension to your thinking. Wet printing has reached its limits both technology-wise and technique-wise. I wouldn't expect any signigicant improvements in the forthcoming years, given that most manufacturers have moved all their R&D recourses to digital process development.
Just keep in mind that investing largely in a wet darkroom (time & effort) you might end up in a few years from now moving to an all-digital, all-standardised, all-easy-peasy process that would be convinient, relatively time-efficient and would certainly produce consistent results.
cheers
Nondas
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
One point to remember is that a wet darkroom is very dependant on ambient temperature in your abode. You mentioned that you could swing it in the summer months...I'm guessing you live in a temperate climate like the one I live in, and that in the winter, it's just largely too much of a hassle to get your darkroom up to temp.
I have both, but I am embarrassed to admit I hardly ever use my wet equipment. Partly because it involves me setting up my gear in the bathroom, partly because it takes a long time to tweak a print just right, etc.
I don't agree that it takes a long time to tweak digital prints...if you have a well calibrated monitor, and a good printer, you're pretty set to go. The most you have to do is waste one or two small proof prints to see how your colors are going, and you've got yourself a good print.
And by the way, printers these days have come a very long way. I can't think of the 1270 off the top of my head, but yesterday I printed some photos with my new Epson 2400, and the results blew me away. They were not big prints, maybe 5x7, but they were much much finer than the 2200 I used to have, but was able to trade in. Not only was the resolution finer, but the tonality was soo much better. I honestly couldn't tell that they were inkjet prints...if somebody had given me such a picture, I would have assumed it was a wet print.
BUT, just about everybody underestimates how much it costs to print digital. Every time Epson comes out with a new series of printers, they add another ink cartridge, and raise the cost of the cartridges. Now I think I'm up to $140 for a full reload of cartridges, and they go fast. Epson purposely doesn't give any statistics for ink usage, although it would be relatively easy to design a program to analyze that usage, if one were so inclined.
Roughly speaking, you can get somewhere between 6-10 8x10" prints out of a full set of Epson 2400 cartridges...that ain't much printing for $140 of ink.
In great contrast, printing black and white with an enlarger really isn't that spendy. You can do a great deal of proofing on strips, small stock, etc. for only a couple of dollars. Finally a sheet of 8x10 doesn't cost much more than a buck or two, and the chemicals for that are nearly free once you figure how many prints you can make.
But then again, that involves carting out the enlarger, standing around in stinky chemicals, and working with a red light. With an inket, you can sit back, smoke a cigar, and watch tv while you're at it.
With a good enlarger and enlarging lens however, the results will be anywhere from a little better to a hell of a lot better to a trained eye.
There's pro's and con's to both systems, but I feel with the quality of modern printers and software, your choice should be reached more by what you don't want to deal with than what you want....If you're less likely to spend several hours in the dark and cramped spaces of your bathroom than pop off a couple prints here or there on your printer, well there's your answer. On the other hand, printing wet is a ton of fun once you get the hang of it.
I have both, but I am embarrassed to admit I hardly ever use my wet equipment. Partly because it involves me setting up my gear in the bathroom, partly because it takes a long time to tweak a print just right, etc.
I don't agree that it takes a long time to tweak digital prints...if you have a well calibrated monitor, and a good printer, you're pretty set to go. The most you have to do is waste one or two small proof prints to see how your colors are going, and you've got yourself a good print.
And by the way, printers these days have come a very long way. I can't think of the 1270 off the top of my head, but yesterday I printed some photos with my new Epson 2400, and the results blew me away. They were not big prints, maybe 5x7, but they were much much finer than the 2200 I used to have, but was able to trade in. Not only was the resolution finer, but the tonality was soo much better. I honestly couldn't tell that they were inkjet prints...if somebody had given me such a picture, I would have assumed it was a wet print.
BUT, just about everybody underestimates how much it costs to print digital. Every time Epson comes out with a new series of printers, they add another ink cartridge, and raise the cost of the cartridges. Now I think I'm up to $140 for a full reload of cartridges, and they go fast. Epson purposely doesn't give any statistics for ink usage, although it would be relatively easy to design a program to analyze that usage, if one were so inclined.
Roughly speaking, you can get somewhere between 6-10 8x10" prints out of a full set of Epson 2400 cartridges...that ain't much printing for $140 of ink.
In great contrast, printing black and white with an enlarger really isn't that spendy. You can do a great deal of proofing on strips, small stock, etc. for only a couple of dollars. Finally a sheet of 8x10 doesn't cost much more than a buck or two, and the chemicals for that are nearly free once you figure how many prints you can make.
But then again, that involves carting out the enlarger, standing around in stinky chemicals, and working with a red light. With an inket, you can sit back, smoke a cigar, and watch tv while you're at it.
With a good enlarger and enlarging lens however, the results will be anywhere from a little better to a hell of a lot better to a trained eye.
There's pro's and con's to both systems, but I feel with the quality of modern printers and software, your choice should be reached more by what you don't want to deal with than what you want....If you're less likely to spend several hours in the dark and cramped spaces of your bathroom than pop off a couple prints here or there on your printer, well there's your answer. On the other hand, printing wet is a ton of fun once you get the hang of it.
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
Eskorpid,
That's an excellent point. I think it's even more appropriate, because there are certain things about shooting with film and printing wet that teach you more about photography than printing from an inkjet can ever teach you. Said better perhaps, you can learn much more intuitively from printing wet, because when you change one variable, the results show themselves in something of an organic way. With digital, you have the added abstraction of a computer to deal with.
It could be a good idea to learn with an enlarger, and move on to digital in a few years. Of course however, there isn't anything that you inherently can not learn with digital..
That's an excellent point. I think it's even more appropriate, because there are certain things about shooting with film and printing wet that teach you more about photography than printing from an inkjet can ever teach you. Said better perhaps, you can learn much more intuitively from printing wet, because when you change one variable, the results show themselves in something of an organic way. With digital, you have the added abstraction of a computer to deal with.
It could be a good idea to learn with an enlarger, and move on to digital in a few years. Of course however, there isn't anything that you inherently can not learn with digital..
Fred
Feline Great
A good point Nondas,
Just a thought though is that used darkroom kit is very cheap on e*boy compared to the cost new. Digital will ultimately catch up and overtake wet prints in the years to come along with the continued throttle back on the raw materials for the darkroom. For now though my best prints are wet ones and it's probably cheaper for me at least.
Ultimately the digital line 'may' win the debate but I'm glad I had the opportunity to do it the 'old' way and I like the results I get.
Just a thought though is that used darkroom kit is very cheap on e*boy compared to the cost new. Digital will ultimately catch up and overtake wet prints in the years to come along with the continued throttle back on the raw materials for the darkroom. For now though my best prints are wet ones and it's probably cheaper for me at least.
Ultimately the digital line 'may' win the debate but I'm glad I had the opportunity to do it the 'old' way and I like the results I get.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
eskorpid said:
The end of endless upgrades? Who wants that? On the plus side, wet printing can be stunningly good - what's left to improve?
I print in a darkroom because I prefer the work flow. It's relaxing after spending the day in front of a computer.
Robert
back alley
IMAGES
i had a darkroom for many years but it sat empty for the last few. i was not printing anything and my negs were largely ignored.
when i rediscovered 35mm and this place (rff) i began to get re-motivated and re-educated too.
now my shooting/printing is from the best of both worlds.
i shoot film and scan it.
99% of viewing is done online or through email.
when i do have a shot i want a hard copy of, i rescan it, work on it in photoshop. i then email to one of the local pro labs and pick it up, usually the next day.
i was thinking about buying a printer but i'm not too sure now.
i don't print many as a rule and my lab is very cheap.
2 bucks for a 5x7 or 5 bucks for an 8x10 and if i'm feeling big, then 10 bucks for 11x14.
the prints look good behind glass and no one has asked me what process i use, they just enjoy the view.
joe
when i rediscovered 35mm and this place (rff) i began to get re-motivated and re-educated too.
now my shooting/printing is from the best of both worlds.
i shoot film and scan it.
99% of viewing is done online or through email.
when i do have a shot i want a hard copy of, i rescan it, work on it in photoshop. i then email to one of the local pro labs and pick it up, usually the next day.
i was thinking about buying a printer but i'm not too sure now.
i don't print many as a rule and my lab is very cheap.
2 bucks for a 5x7 or 5 bucks for an 8x10 and if i'm feeling big, then 10 bucks for 11x14.
the prints look good behind glass and no one has asked me what process i use, they just enjoy the view.
joe
GeneW
Veteran
If you shoot film only, a wet darkroom is a great match and the prints, if done well, can look fantastic. Bearing in mind that temporary darkrooms can be a PITA to set up and take down.
If you shoot digital as well as film, it may test your resolve to have two separate, different, and equally complex workflows, trying to become very good at both. Some people do it, though. I've taken the route of scanning negatives and printing digitally (both home inkjet and lab printers) to hone one set of skills into one generalized workflow that also works for my digitally captured shots. But then again, I like computers -- Photoshop is my friend, not my enemy. ymmv
Gene
If you shoot digital as well as film, it may test your resolve to have two separate, different, and equally complex workflows, trying to become very good at both. Some people do it, though. I've taken the route of scanning negatives and printing digitally (both home inkjet and lab printers) to hone one set of skills into one generalized workflow that also works for my digitally captured shots. But then again, I like computers -- Photoshop is my friend, not my enemy. ymmv
Gene
ddunn
John
One thing to consider is that the major manufacturers are getting out of the photo paper business. Kodak and Agfa are gone; Ilford is dicey. The really good paper based chloride and bromide papers have been gone for years. There are a few small companies around, but they are pricey.
Frankly, as long as you know what you're doing & keep it small (5 x 7 or 6 x 9) it's hard to tell an inkjet from a wet print. You might be better off mastering inkjet printing now.
Frankly, as long as you know what you're doing & keep it small (5 x 7 or 6 x 9) it's hard to tell an inkjet from a wet print. You might be better off mastering inkjet printing now.
PaulN
Monkey
Thanks for the info everyone!
I'm still up in the air as to what I'm going to do. I think I'm going to make due with the Inkjet process until the warmer months. With luck, I'll own a house by then and have room for a dedicated dark room with the ability to stabilize the temp.
I've tried the MIS UT2 inks in my 1270 but wasn't too pleased with the results. Way too much trial and error with regards to the PS settings, gamma, etc. Even though my screen is hardware calibrated, I was still having lots of issues getting the prints to match. They aren't even close; either it is way to light or way too dark. As the paper impacts the print, I'm wasting a lot. Then again, I guess I'd be wasting a lot of paper if I were going the wet route as well.
The whine of the printer just doesn't seem to capture the magic of watching the image appear.
I'm still up in the air as to what I'm going to do. I think I'm going to make due with the Inkjet process until the warmer months. With luck, I'll own a house by then and have room for a dedicated dark room with the ability to stabilize the temp.
I've tried the MIS UT2 inks in my 1270 but wasn't too pleased with the results. Way too much trial and error with regards to the PS settings, gamma, etc. Even though my screen is hardware calibrated, I was still having lots of issues getting the prints to match. They aren't even close; either it is way to light or way too dark. As the paper impacts the print, I'm wasting a lot. Then again, I guess I'd be wasting a lot of paper if I were going the wet route as well.
The whine of the printer just doesn't seem to capture the magic of watching the image appear.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Paul,
Just fyi, if you're going to use the UT2 inkset you might want to add QTR to the equation. I, too, sometimes had issues getting the print to match up correctly. This was doubly annoying because I had to go back into PS, edit it, then add the curve again, then print again. However, with QTR I can simply move a slider a little this way or that and reprint the exact same image. I have now found a combination of shadow and midtone settings that work basically on the first try with each of my papers.
allan
Just fyi, if you're going to use the UT2 inkset you might want to add QTR to the equation. I, too, sometimes had issues getting the print to match up correctly. This was doubly annoying because I had to go back into PS, edit it, then add the curve again, then print again. However, with QTR I can simply move a slider a little this way or that and reprint the exact same image. I have now found a combination of shadow and midtone settings that work basically on the first try with each of my papers.
allan
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
RObert Budding said:
THAT'S what i'm talking about. computers are my work tools, and i want to be FAR away from them in my leisure time. all of my recreational pursuits are of an analog nature on purpose. now if i could only get the book version of RFF
that said...i do own a 2200 for work, and have used it now and again (even though it is less enjoyable of a process), with great results. i can probably generate a "better" looking print by scanning negs, photoshop, and the inkjet. only because i do it day in, day out for work...and i'm a bit rusty in the dark room! i plan on chaning that though.
Last edited:
grizzz
Griz...
Am I reading this right? Is this 6-10 completed with a bunch of testing or is it only good for this many prints? I just picked up a 2200 used and may not even set it up if it slurps ink that fast.....
TEZillman
Well-known
Why "or"? If you're an amatuer and need to answer to no one but yourself, why not try both and see where your experiences lead? Your own aptitude for one way or the other may eventually lead to the best way to make prints for you.