Wet or Dry?

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
9:52 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
Just a quick question to ease my own curiosity... If you are a film photographer, do you print in a wet darkroom or scan your negatives and make inkjet prints (or jpgs for computer screens)? And, of course, why did you make that choice?
 
WET WET WET. I'm about to be using a community darkroom that has c41 developing capabilities, but not color printing, so any color prints will be digital.

I see it as if I'm going to be shooting black and white film I may as well go the full distance and print traditionally as well. It's so much more fun and satisfying. Also a friend donated her father's old enlarger to me and everything else I needed to buy to get up and running was only around 75 bucks so it came out to be a hell of a lot cheaper than buying an inkjet printer and ink.
 
Wet. That's the art/craft I learned & it works for my photographs & my photographic vision. It's a little like music. As a musician do you play acoustic or electric music? Me...I choose not to plug in. Neither the process or the outcome satisfies me.
 
WET all the way -- I spend 40+ hours every week on some of the finest computer hardware for my day job. The last thing I want to do in my personal time is sit in front of a computer screen. I don't have space for a darkroom in my house, but my local community college has an art studio class in the evening and a great darkroom.
 
I wet print silver gelatin. Although I have done it, for new work, I can't really see the point of shooting film, scanning, and digital printing. Just shoot digital. Most of my platinum palladium is now digital -> digital negative.
 
Wet from 1976 until 2003. Dry since. Still have most of the wet darkroom equipment, just in need of a good space.

A move from our home, which had a great darkroom space, in 2003 caused the change. Started scanning negs (all negs naturally still processed wet, at home) and found I could do most of what I needed w/o the wet darkroom, so for now, that's how we roll.

I keep telling myself, someday I'll set back up, we'll see if I live that long. ;-)

Best,
-Tim
 
I do both. BW and Color. I do print both.
BW in the darkroom a.k.a. bathroom, color via inkjet in the room beside.
And then here is dry. The slide a.k.a. positive film. I also do at home, but just a very few rolls.
 
Both. Wet prints for what matters, scans for stuff that isn't shot digitally and goes into one of our newspapers. The darkroom process is nice in itself and I like wet ptints.
 
I mainly scan the negatives, and use my inkjet to print. Why? The adjustments I can do to the negative with Photoshop are much better than what I could ever do in a wet darkroom.

Jim B.
 
Wet print. I like the look and feel of the finished product better, and enjoy the process more than sitting at a computer.
 
Scan. Been doing it that way for 17 years now. I have had serious health problems all of my life, and the chemicals began making me even sicker so I had to stop.
 
Scan. It’s convenient and results are good. I have excellent scanner Nikon Coolscan if it counts.

I have tried wet print several times but i found that digital print is serving me well.

I guess in the end it all depends all what you need and what makes you satisfied. That’s why we have both mediums existing together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Wet printing, since 1967. Also for use online I prefer wet prints. Most recent one:

Leica M2, Summicron 50mm f/2 rigid, 400-2TMY, Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

43427862475_0ca473f3ef_c.jpg
 
Wet.

Looks better.

Otherwise, why bother with film? I don't shoot colour film any more. By the time it's been strained through a scanner and a printer, I might as well use digi.

Cheers,

R.
 
For about the past ten years, scanned and used inkjet. This summer, finally got my act together and started doing wet prints for the first time. Lots to learn, lots of negatives to go through, but loving the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom