Jocko
Off With The Pixies
Friends, I have a problem and I really don’t know what to do.
I have the chance to set up a darkroom - but for the price of an enlarger I could buy a good film scanner...
I can see the advantages - and otherwise - of both. The familiarity of the wet process is countered by its relative inconvenience, whilst stories of incomprehensible software lead me to doubt the apparent ease of scanning.
So I’ve talked myself into gibbering inaction.
I wondered what others might do in this circumstance. Which path to follow, the wet or the dry? - for the present I would rather attempt to master one than blunder along in both. Your thoughts would be much appreciated...
I have the chance to set up a darkroom - but for the price of an enlarger I could buy a good film scanner...
I can see the advantages - and otherwise - of both. The familiarity of the wet process is countered by its relative inconvenience, whilst stories of incomprehensible software lead me to doubt the apparent ease of scanning.
So I’ve talked myself into gibbering inaction.
I wondered what others might do in this circumstance. Which path to follow, the wet or the dry? - for the present I would rather attempt to master one than blunder along in both. Your thoughts would be much appreciated...
djon
Well-known
Blunder in one, then the other. It ain't a horse race.
If you've never gotten good in a wet darkroom, do it before the digital darkness is terminal. Buy your enlarger used...good ones are incredibly cheap now, a whole darkroom with good Beseler 23C or Omega B22 with lens, trays, safelight, timer and tongs won't set you back $250 in classifieds or from some desperate consignment seller in a dusty old camera store.
I now use a Nikon V for 35 and an Epson 3200 with antinewton glass for 120/6X9, printing with an Epson 2200, but I used Durst and Beseler enlargers for twenty years before rip-van-winkeling for ten years.
If you've never gotten good in a wet darkroom, do it before the digital darkness is terminal. Buy your enlarger used...good ones are incredibly cheap now, a whole darkroom with good Beseler 23C or Omega B22 with lens, trays, safelight, timer and tongs won't set you back $250 in classifieds or from some desperate consignment seller in a dusty old camera store.
I now use a Nikon V for 35 and an Epson 3200 with antinewton glass for 120/6X9, printing with an Epson 2200, but I used Durst and Beseler enlargers for twenty years before rip-van-winkeling for ten years.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Tough call and a problem that alot of people have wrestled with including me. Both are rewarding and time consuming hobbies. I took the scanner/inkjet route because it is more convenient for me. I already had a PC so the scanner and printer take up little room as opposed to a dedicated darkroom and I do not have to deal with chemicals. OTH as djon says used darkroom equipment is cheap and if you have room why not? Try one, get good at it and then try the other.
Bob
Bob
Toby
On the alert
Depends what you want in the end product. If you would never print on anything but RC paper going digital would make a lot of sense, but if you are au fait with the various FB papers and like 16x20's you are probably never going to be happy with digital (at the moment anyway
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
Good advice! I originally intended to go the digital path, then I realized how cheap traditional gear was and the possibilities it opened up. And Toby - that's exactly what I was thinking. Somehow A4 inkjet paper wouldn't be the same... I used to be pretty good in the darkroom (!) but like so many of us, I drifted away for 10 years... Best go wet while I still can!
Last edited:
Solinar
Analog Preferred
These are two different looks, essentially. The advantage of the Photo Shop layers is you can really pull a rabbit out of the hat. In other words, a not so good neg can eventually look o.k. and the work flow is much neater, as it is on a desk top
With a traditional wet print, working the kinks out of a troublesome neg isn't always worth it, but for my money I prefer the traditional look when everything comes out right.
My Nova slot processor and my enlarger both are on carts, which allow me to quickly store the whole set up into a walk-in closet. In fact the enlarger never leaves the closet.
With a traditional wet print, working the kinks out of a troublesome neg isn't always worth it, but for my money I prefer the traditional look when everything comes out right.
My Nova slot processor and my enlarger both are on carts, which allow me to quickly store the whole set up into a walk-in closet. In fact the enlarger never leaves the closet.
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
Thank you Andrew - those Nova tanks look great... Ahhh. I love the smell of fixer in the morning!
remrf
AZRF
If you have the room I would urge you to set up a darkroom and wet process your negs. At least for a while.
Why?
Because you are probably in one of the last generations of "photographers" who will have the chance to do so.
The equiptment is getting harder to find( though cheaper when you find it), the papers, chemicals and such are in shorter supply and soon (only a few years I think) it will be no more.
There are things you can learn about exposure as it relates to a finished print that I do not think you can learn using a scanner. There are things you can learn about pulling the print you want from the neg you got that again I don't think translates to the digital world.
I have yet to get a print from any lab that I did not think I could get better results had I printed the neg myself.
Many I'm sure would disagree. But you asked for opinions and I'm giving you mine.
The word "photographer" is undergoing a transition in definition at present. For over 100 years it meant someone who practiced the craft using light sensitive film and papers with the wet chemical process. I for one am glad that I learned about this craft when there was only one definition.
Why?
Because you are probably in one of the last generations of "photographers" who will have the chance to do so.
The equiptment is getting harder to find( though cheaper when you find it), the papers, chemicals and such are in shorter supply and soon (only a few years I think) it will be no more.
There are things you can learn about exposure as it relates to a finished print that I do not think you can learn using a scanner. There are things you can learn about pulling the print you want from the neg you got that again I don't think translates to the digital world.
I have yet to get a print from any lab that I did not think I could get better results had I printed the neg myself.
Many I'm sure would disagree. But you asked for opinions and I'm giving you mine.
The word "photographer" is undergoing a transition in definition at present. For over 100 years it meant someone who practiced the craft using light sensitive film and papers with the wet chemical process. I for one am glad that I learned about this craft when there was only one definition.
GeneW
Veteran
I used to do a lot of wet darkroom work, and still have all the gear. Every once in awhile I think of setting it back up again, but ...
I also shoot digital. It makes a better and more consistent workflow, for me, to send everything through Photoshop. So I got a scanner and it handles the film side of my photography just fine.
There is certainly much to be said for a darkroom print, but, to be honest, I never liked darkroom work as much as I like using Photoshop (bearing in mind that I've been a computer geek since the early 70's and that I LIKE computers)
Gene
I also shoot digital. It makes a better and more consistent workflow, for me, to send everything through Photoshop. So I got a scanner and it handles the film side of my photography just fine.
There is certainly much to be said for a darkroom print, but, to be honest, I never liked darkroom work as much as I like using Photoshop (bearing in mind that I've been a computer geek since the early 70's and that I LIKE computers)
Gene
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
Remrf, I could not agree more. I think you made an unanswerable case. Thankyou
Gene, I can see your point entirely, but I'm a pathetic computer novice. I like them, but I don't trust myself... I also believe everything I read (does photoshop really require "at least a year" to understand?!). I think I'm for the wet!
Gene, I can see your point entirely, but I'm a pathetic computer novice. I like them, but I don't trust myself... I also believe everything I read (does photoshop really require "at least a year" to understand?!). I think I'm for the wet!
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I don't think Photoshop requires more than a few weeks to learn, to be honest. You learn levels and curves, and that will give you the two basic tools. What you need beyond that is a willingness (and the time) to experiment and fiddle around.
However, I also kind of feel that if you have a background in wet printing _and_ enjoyed that approach, and that you're either agnostic towards or perhaps even a bit leery of the computer route, you should go with wet printing.
For me, I was basically starting at ground zero either way. Or perhaps the first floor. I had taken all of 2 photos classes and so had been wet printing for just a few months. I had fiddled with but not done any hardcode photoshop work. So, looking at my options, with roughly an equal learning curve either way, I decided on the digital route. It made sense to me and the way I work.
allan
However, I also kind of feel that if you have a background in wet printing _and_ enjoyed that approach, and that you're either agnostic towards or perhaps even a bit leery of the computer route, you should go with wet printing.
For me, I was basically starting at ground zero either way. Or perhaps the first floor. I had taken all of 2 photos classes and so had been wet printing for just a few months. I had fiddled with but not done any hardcode photoshop work. So, looking at my options, with roughly an equal learning curve either way, I decided on the digital route. It made sense to me and the way I work.
allan
Mister_Hat
Established
I had a darkroom back in the 80's, but we had to turn it into a nursery. Still have all the equipment, but a film scanner and Photoshop Elements works better for me. My problem these days is lack of time to pursue my hobbies, and doing image processing on the computer allows me to grab the odd half hour here and there to relax with photography.
Toby
On the alert
Mister_Hat said:
This is a very good point. When I had the time to do really high quality FB prints I found that they could be immensely time consuming, just developing and washing test strips is a good 10 minutes so often you could spend 1/2 hour just getting to the first test print of a contrasty neg. I used to be a member of photofusion in Brixton, which hires out darkroom space in four-hourly chunks, and often I would come out with only 3-4 16x20 images. The darkroom can be a bit of a time vortex and it isn't possible to save your work.
pipal
Established
Hello Jocko and hello to all, as I didn't yet take chance to introduce myself. I joined this forum few weeks ago and my work keeps me busy and away from it (always the same crazy end of the year as every year). I moved this summer into another town and found that I can bulid a darkroom in the new place. A crazy idea, as I did not do the wet work before (well, i did it a little as a boy, but that's a buch of years back and forgot all about it). I got some old second-hand enlarger from internet ad, bought some little accessories and set it up. Oh, it's great to see the emerging pictures on the paper in developer. This feeling is worth it. But back to your question - wet or dry. I work with computers and I used to work with digital images before, so I am not scared of either way. And I am trying to use the pros from both worlds. I develop film myself, scan it on a cheap flatbed scanner with transparency lamp, do the digital "contact prints" sheet and print it to be included in archive withe the film in sleeves. The scans I do are low-res (or mid-res), but good enough to see how the foto came out and then I can pick up those, which I can play with in the darkroom. That way you can do the wet printing only good images and don't waste the time and paper and all on bad ones. And you are not fed up with the wet work as you do only few and only the best images, which is a joy. Actually I just started doing it this way few days/weeks ago, but I am very happy with it so far and you might find it interresting you as well.
So get an old enlarger and cheap flatbed scanner which can do the film scanning and voila!
Martin
So get an old enlarger and cheap flatbed scanner which can do the film scanning and voila!
Martin
Byuphoto
Would like to upgrade
The basics of photoshop digital editing, and I recommend Elements 3, are easily mastered in a few weeks. The more intricate stuff will take a willingness to learn and try. Elements has a lot of automated settings.Jocko said:
celluloidprop
Well-known
If I had the chance to set up a home darkroom, enlarger and all, I'd jump at the chance. I like Photoshop, and digital is excellent for many things, but nothing I've found yet compares to the fun of darkroom work and watching a print appear in Dektol.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Not to try and sway you one way or the other I will say that PS is as complicated as you want to make it. I use PS Elements 2.0 and do not feel compelled to upgrade at the moment, nor to I use 90% of what it can do. Seems to be not that hard for a high school drop out like myself.
With either choice you are in the winners circle, difficult to loose.
Bob
With either choice you are in the winners circle, difficult to loose.
Bob
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
Firstly I'd just like to thank everyone who has contributed - I can't tell you how much you've helped. Martin, Hallo! like you I'm new to this forum - but it just seems to me that the willingness to engage in a frank, constructive and friendly exchange of views is the defining characteristic of RFF. Long may it remain so.
I think Martin has hit on the best of compromises. No doubt I will eventually go down the digital route, but I think a wet darkroom is appropriate at the moment. Without it I'd rush at Photoshop and proceed to screw things up. As Bob says, it's difficult to lose. Thank you all so much!
I think Martin has hit on the best of compromises. No doubt I will eventually go down the digital route, but I think a wet darkroom is appropriate at the moment. Without it I'd rush at Photoshop and proceed to screw things up. As Bob says, it's difficult to lose. Thank you all so much!
Last edited:
T_om
Well-known
kaiyen said:
I can teach anyone with more than one brain cell how to play chess. Then, of course, it only takes a few weeks to turn out a chessmaster, right?
Learning the basics of PhotoShop really just opens the door. It doesn't bring you into the room or seat you at the experts table. Opening that door may be enough for you... but only you can make that determination.
I consider myself fairly expert at PS. I can do with it just about anything that I can think of that I would WANT to do with it. But I have just barely scratched the surface of learning the complete power behind this amazing editing program.
Anyway, to return to the subject, I don't miss wet darkroom work at all. I still love film and the 'look' I get processing film the way I like it processed. But after I develop the film that is as far down the traditional road as I go. It goes from there to a scanner. I have no desire to ever return to an enlarger again. I can produce a better output in my digital darkroom. Other people feel just the opposite. They believe their best work can only come from wet prints. Difference of opinion is what makes horse races.
Tom
pipal
Established
And yet I would add, that the dificulty or easines of either way vary a lot. I started making things in Gimp (similar to Photoshop) a year (or little more) ago and was struggling with it terribly at the beginning. Then I learned a lot during the year and now I can do quite easily what I need in Gimp. But I started using film again in January and did some scans and "Gimp-developing" from negs at first. With the new darkroom I started two moths ago my own B/W developing and found myself on the beginning again. I can say, that it is as dificult to learn the wet way as to do it in computer, but on the other hand there is one difference. No matter what you start with, you learn what can be achieved and how it can be done. And when you switch to other way, you know already what, but you dont know how. And this reduces the learning to the half only as you can previsualise the results. I am struggling in the darkroom now, but the learning curve is much steeper. And it's all fun, I can relax from computers which I see all day. 
)
)