Wet or Dry?

Wet for B&W.

Color gets dye sub (DNP) for small prints, sent out for printing on a Lamda for larger ones.

Rolfe
 
Erik van Straten said:
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
Click to expand...
What the heck's going on Erik? That's not Perceptol! (but still very good...)
John Mc
 
Wet for prints.
Higher quality at lower price.

And reversal film (colour and BW) for the unsurpassed brillance and "3D-Look" on the light table under an excellent slide loupe and in projection.
If I want a print from my slides: High-Res scanning and then wet-print on RA-4 silver halide paper (by my prof. local lab).

Cheers, Jan
 
Due to space considerations I am unfortunately a dry "county" when it comes to printing. I still shoot film but scan and print via inkjet.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.

...
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Once it's digitized, it's not analog. Any criticism of digital imaging becomes relevant.

With one exception, a hybrid workflow never made sense to me. That exception is the experience of using a film camera. About 15 years ago inadequate support of manual focus operation and large, heavy DSLRs were my primary motivations for using a hybrid workflow. For me, in the spring of 2011 this changed and I eventually sold my film cameras.

Furthermore, I reluctantly (very reluctantly) have to admit post-production tools are readily available that can render a raw file that looks as though the original media was film.
 
For thirty years a slide shooter so the question never arose.
Had a darkroom for a number of years in the seventies.

These days its a hybrid system all down the line for black and white .
Scan the negs and any that get printed go to Ilford who project the digital file onto photographic paper and wet print it.

I much prefer wet prints but at my time of life have no intention of re learning darkroom skills and having to deal with the fumes so my current workflow (dislike that word) suits me fine.
 
willie_901 said:
Furthermore, I reluctantly (very reluctantly) have to admit post-production tools are readily available that can render a raw file that looks as though the original media was film.
Click to expand...

I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on this. I’ve gotten pretty good results using programs like Silver Efex, Tonality Pro and Dxo Filmpack. Probably a little better at achieving a “silver” look with just the adjustment controls in Lightroom, often dropping out the lowest tones in the digital file with Dehaze and boosting the midrange contrast with Clarity. I’m sort of obsessed with the trying to match older film work with current digital work in my prints and appreciate any thoughts on the process.
 
Mostly I am more interested in monochrome rendering tonality than trying to completely emulate film. I use Lightroom and Silver EFX. I also get "pretty good results". For better or worse, almost all of my film B&W work was done with Tri-X. This naturally affects my digital-image rendering preferences. For me, the most recent LR CC updates render monochrome from raw files better than older versions. I'm using Silver Efex less and less even though the Silver Efex U POINT® dodge and burn tool is amazing.

There are so many variables and "silver looks" possible with a pure, wet workflow. The diverse aesthetics with film exposures, development strategies, and wet printing techniques/media seem endless.

My view is the final test is the print. But this adds another set of variables and subjectivity. I suggest relatively recent advances in monochrome printing technologies and media options make a difference when it comes to reproducing B&W film aesthetics with raw files.

Now I mostly use monochrome rendering for raw files with very low S/N due to unavoidable low ambient-light levels. LR Classic Cloud renders these well. While I rarely try to simulate film grain with high S/N files, the Grain section in the Develop Module's Effects panel is works well. Also, I do not attempt to remove or minimize grain from scans. I just try try to achieve similar grain perception.

I am facing a project where I want to produce sets of images from 1970-1072 high-quality Tri-X scans. My lack of training and experience resulted in inconsistent development. The goal is to render images for different Series within the project to be similar.

Negative scans can be compromised by grain artifacts. Grain artifacts are caused by aliasing and it is possible to minimize them (link, scroll about 1/2 way down). A hybrid workflow does not guarantee results that are indistinguishable from a pure analog workflow.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on this. I’ve gotten pretty good results using programs like Silver Efex, Tonality Pro and Dxo Filmpack. Probably a little better at achieving a “silver” look with just the adjustment controls in Lightroom, often dropping out the lowest tones in the digital file with Dehaze and boosting the midrange contrast with Clarity. I’m sort of obsessed with the trying to match older film work with current digital work in my prints and appreciate any thoughts on the process.
Click to expand...

I must admit that I am curious why you would wish to "match" film with digital? Is that really authentic? I mean why not let film be film and then digital develops its own aesthetic? . . . which I believe is happening.
 
traveler_101 said:
I must admit that I am curious why you would wish to "match" film with digital? Is that really authentic? I mean why not let film be film and then digital develops its own aesthetic? . . . which I believe is happening.
Click to expand...

Making a set of b&w prints with a common theme or subject, but which were taken over a period of years on both film and digital sensors, I would like them to have, in general, a relatively consistent appearance, to "match." Beyond that, if there is a "silver look" and a "digital look," being an old person who grew up on "silver," I prefer that look.
 
Wet printing since 1977, I rarely scan film anymore. I did do all my color scan/inkjet for a while, but now color is all digital save an 8x10 project, which hasn't progressed past the contact print stage yet.

44389162151_08c0110655_c.jpg


44389163051_88493659d1_c.jpg


Getting all set up to spend a long fall and winter in the darkroom printing up two bodies of work I've recently finished editing. Just ordered in a bunch of Bergger VC CM, will do some testing to finalize my developer mix next week.
 
I use a hybrid process for monochrome - develop film and scan - and I use this process primarily because it gives me results that I like. I have yet to see a digital monochrome image that looks the same as scanned film either tonally or in terms of image structure. I'm not saying it can't be done but I hate messing about in post other than to make a few minor tonal adjustments and sharpening as well as, if necessary, a bit of spotting. I also enjoy using the very wide variety of papers that are available for inkjet printers.

I find it odd that so many who 'dry print' are almost apologetic about it, as if it's necessarily inferior to wet printing. In my view it's simply another choice that one can make not just for convenience but because the results are satisfying. I've seen many monochrome images produced from fully digital processes but find them too clinical, too smooth and in some cases too detailed for my taste. In other words, I like the structure that film grain gives to an image, even when the grain is quite small, and disagree with those who think that a hybrid process is pointless.
 
I agree with Lawrence that hybrid processes aren't pointless. In fact are all analog images shown here on RFf the result of hybrid processes.

However, different starting points deliver different results. A scan from a film negative gives a totally different result than a scan of a gelatine silver print of the same negative.

Erik.
 
Dry for me.

I don't feel like scanning is pointless. It still looks the way I want it to look, which is like I shot it on film, without trying to make a digital pic look that way. It takes a lot less time for me (once the scan is done) to reach the final product with film, than digital.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to have a darkroom, I just don't have the space/time for it, but i'm perfectly fine with scanning.
 
Usually I print with the (apparently) frowned upon hybrid workflow. Sometimes I might fire up the enlarger, especially for the kind of photo whose only purpose is to be printed wet. But past health problems mean I have to avoid contact with chemicals as much as possible, so I don't do that very often.

That said, I never felt strongly (still don't) about printing either way. The exciting part for me, that which stirrs up and flings me to the street, is in committing in a piece of negative or memory card a kind of fleeting testimony, skewed and flawed as it may be, about something that matters to me. Anyway, I am only interested in printing with basic editing modifications as too much darkrooming sometimes alters the purpose of photos. Frankly, I'd have one care less in the world if someone else printed my photos and gave them a simple and polished look, be it in the wet or dry darkroom. This being a rather expensive option I bow my head and print myself.
 
telenous said:
Usually I print with the (apparently) frowned upon hybrid workflow. Sometimes I might fire up the enlarger, especially for the kind of photo whose only purpose is to be printed wet. But past health problems mean I have to avoid contact with chemicals as much as possible, so I don't do that very often.

That said, I never felt strongly (still don't) about printing either way. The exciting part for me, that which stirrs up and flings me to the street, is in committing in a piece of negative or memory card a kind of fleeting testimony, skewed and flawed as it may be, about something that matters to me. Anyway, I am only interested in printing with basic editing modifications as too much darkrooming sometimes alters the purpose of photos. Frankly, I'd have one care less in the world if someone else printed my photos and gave them a simple and polished look, be it in the wet or dry darkroom. This being a rather expensive option I bow my head and print myself.
Click to expand...

That`s how I feel about it .

Hybrid process and then send the files to Ilford who scan onto photographic paper and wet print .
Not that expensive and certainly preferable for my needs.
 
For me only a wet print can close the life cycle of a photo. I use darkroom at the local community college and it's a social event for me as well.
 
Scan then inkjet.

Why? I don't have the skill, equipment, space (or patience) to do good wet prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom