Wet or dry?

Wet for B&W. I enjoy engaging in the process. Watching the image come up in the developer. Washing, sponging, drying, listening to the FM radio on my darkroom stereo the whole time. It's another world in there. And of course I like the results.

But for color, it's dry. I really appreciate being able to shoot direct to digital, plug the camera into the computer, play with the image in photoshop elements, and hit the print button. No fuss, no muss. No expensive, messy chemicals. (Only ink that costs $5000 per gallon--ever do the math on that?) And the results are not bad at all!
 
I have one decent digi cam and more film ones than I care to count.

I am reopening the darkroom very soon as the digi thing is wearing of a bit.

Ink prints don`t thrill me and neither does turning it over to some lab.

What I really want is an enlarger that takes a digi file that I made. Life would be perfect.
 
Dry.

In fact, I've never used, let alone developed, film.

I'm pretty new to photography, and only started in 2005, when I bought myself a digital camera. If digital hadn't come on the scene, I wouldn't have taken up photography.

I have no interest whatsoever in traditional chemical photography and the wet darkroom, though I'm definitely not denigrating it, nor those who prefer it: it's simply just not for me, and (I'm speaking solely about myself here) I really can't see what I would gain from using film - all can see are cons compared with digital. (And digital print technology is advancing rapidly, so any differences in quality between silver and digital are fast disappearing, e.g. the new baryta inkjet papers.)

That said, though I'm fully digital, I do like to work in an analogue way with a manual camera - hence the reason I use a Leica M8 (my only camera).

As to what I do in my digital darkroom, I try and restrict myself to enhancing a photo as opposed to changing it: I'll happily dodge and burn or add a virtual ND filter, but replacing a white sky with a more interesting one or cloning things (excepting dust spots!) is anathema.

However, unlike some digital photographers, a computer file is not enough for me: a photo only becomes "real" once I've printed it, which I do using archival paper/ink, so that I have something physical and tangible.

I suspect there are a lot of new photographers like me for whom "wet" photography is just an irrelevant historical technique encountered only in books...
 
Wet and getting wetter (i.e., exploring more alternative processes--mainly albumen).

I just don't care for the look of inkjet prints, but I have seen some hybrid prints that interest me--Keith Taylor's multilayer gums for Cy DeCosse, which are made using digital separations. I don't make digital negs, myself, though.

I have a couple of scanners for putting things on the web, and I'll occasionally send a color transparency for a drum scan and a Chromira print, and I have a Coolpix 990 that I use like a scanner for archiving documents mainly, but that's the extent of my digital photography activity.
 
elevatordigital.ca in Toronto is printing Lambda to the new Ilford digital silver gelatin FB paper. I haven't seen any prints using this process, but reports are very positive.

If you want a lab in New York for silver gelatin prints from digital files, you might look at http://www.precisionphotos.com/. They are mainly a headshot repro lab, but I know they have two DeVere digital enlargers, which can print digital to any B&W or color paper, but the size limit is about 20x24". I've seen prints using this enlarger, and they looked good. It's essentially a conventional enlarger with an LCD screen in place of the negative, hence the size limit, after which the raster pattern might become visible on the prints. It might be worth asking if they do custom work.
 
I've got back to wet. Like my time in the cave. Can play my music as loud as I want. Will not answer the phone. No stupid Windows or OSX to get in my way and I feel like I'm following in the masters footsteps.

I work as a product manager in the computer field and like to get away from computers as much as possible... at least for my art.
 
I am immensely proud of this thread. A controversial subject and no one is flaming anyone else. There has not been a "silver is dead" entry. And there hasn't been a "digital is the devil" reply. This conversation has been more civil than some on the same subject in my living room.

Often, in my world, where you are working for someone else, film and paper vs. digital and inkjet is decided by the client - or, in the case of news, the deadline. Here people are doing what they like to do.

In the latest issue of "finity," David Vestal talks about a Kodak poll in which 9,000 pro and semi-pro shooters replied and approximately 3/4's preferred film. Looking through what those polled said, David points out no true technical advantage of film is mentioned. But...

What you see in our discussion is that many of us enjoy the whole darkroom process of developing and printing with it's solitude and a process that unveils the image at a slow pace that helps you understand it. It's not a question of advantage or better; it's a question of pleasure. And many of us enjoy essentially the same process with a little less solitude and probably better air quality sitting at our computers.

There is one advantage to black-and-white film over digital - exposure latitude, tonal range, whatever you want to call it. Even when you print digital files in black-and-white, your printing an image with a tonal range that comes closer to Ektachrome than Tri-X. That should improve as we go to digital cameras with higher bit counts and a few other image tweaks.

And I will differ with those that say inkjet prints have serious limitations to their quality. I think that was true; I don't think it is true any longer. The wet darkroom has been around for years. Advances in quality now come very slowly. The dry darkroom is just starting and so, for awhile, progress will be very rapid. I have had fellow photographers look at a good digital print and say, "Is that silver or digital?" I mentioned previously a somewhat similar reaction showing some prints to a museum. After the prints were put away I asked if anyone realized that some prints were silver and some were inkjet. Nobody did. I don't think this is a sign of ignorance. I think it's a sign that someone was looking at prints, not to see how they were made, but whether the pictures were any good.

Bill
 
I think it's a sign that someone was looking at prints, not to see how they were made, but whether the pictures were any good.
Click to expand...

Of course. The result is the thing. The process is only relavant to the creator. And the creator is responsible to control that process. This is why the film/digital issue is silly - why does it matter how you get there? There is not a single technical point that validates a process.
 
Actually, there is one con about the digital darkroom that niggles at me (despite being a digital-only photographer): with the advent of digital processing in Photoshop etc., there seems to be an increasing emphasis on technical print quality to the detriment of content; an emphasis that I don't think is particularly healthy.

For example, I was watching someone critique prints for inclusion in an exhibition, and he rejected one for excessive digital noise and another for slightly blown highlights; but he included other more technically perfect prints that said very little and didn't have half the emotional content of the two he passed over.

Ultimately, a photograph is a means of communication, and needs to be considered in the round: technical perfection is a worthy goal, but may not be the most important factor in a particular photograph.

I guess there are a several reasons for this change in emphasis, such as the ease of making some corrections to digital images (wide exposure latitude with raw files, cloning) and the fact that, before digital, most people had others develop and print their films - unlike now, when even my mum messes around with photos from her compact digicam on her PC and prints them herself.

Anyone any thoughts on this?
 
For example, I was watching someone critique prints for inclusion in an exhibition, and he rejected one for excessive digital noise and another for slightly blown highlights; but he included other more technically perfect prints that said very little and didn't have half the emotional content of the two he passed over.
Click to expand...

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Helmut Gernsheim made a similar comment about a Royal Academy of Art member who said a certain young artist will not have an exhibition there. The "expert" said that there was no detail in the shadows. Fortunately, the snub did little to influence Edward Weston's career.
 
Bill Pierce said:
a process that unveils the image at a slow pace that helps you understand it. It's not a question of advantage or better
Click to expand...

True enough. But slowness does have, IMO, an inherent advantage. Your statement implies that "better" results are obtainable at a slower, more contemplative pace ... because of a more complete understanding resulting from time. That's not to say that one can't take their time in front of a computer display, or in the digital printing process. It's just that it seems less common, if not harder.

Oh ... and I love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like victory. 😀
 
Bill,

I do both and prefer wet. I've been without a wet darkroom for awhile and I'm going to rent some wet dr space until I get my wet dr set up...I miss it and the dry dr is just not my first choice. BTW...I am just now "happy" with the dry results. I just don't enjoy the digital process.

Bob
 
I've put away the enlarger. 35mm is developed in the darkroom but scanned for printing on an Epson 2200.

8x10 film is still developed and contact printed in the darkroom. Pretty rudimentary setup... My existing flatbed is an Epson 2450 which can't handle 8x10 on the glass or I'd probably be printing them digitally too. I'm saving pennies for the Epson 750 or Microtek Artixscan M1 (if it ever hits the market).

Gregg
 
Bill,

I print in a wet darkroom.

I spend a significant amount of time on a PC at work, and the last thing I want to do when I get home is stare at a monitor for several more hours. 5 years ago, I realized that I had gotten away from having any hobbies, and felt the need to do some kind of craftwork with my hands in order to keep my sanity. I stumbled onto photography, and it has become a wonderful outlet (the alternative was buying an old MG or Fiat to restore, but space limitations nixed that...). When I print in the darkroom, I feel as though I'm crafting something with my hands... and I just don't get that feeling with digital printing. Others have characterized this as a "tactile" feel, and I agree with that.

My wet printing has nothing to do with denigration of digital; in fact I don't know how anyone can fail to be impressed with the improvements in quality. I just enjoy the wet process more (not the mention that at one point I had tendinitis from hammering away at the PC in the office...).

Dale
 
I think Dale's post hits upon an important point in that some of us look at the labor it takes to make a quality wet print quite differently than the work that goes into making a digital print. Taken a bit further, while the man-hours it takes to tweak a PS image may exceed those put into a wet print, once the final digital file is 'in the can', any number of dry prints can be run off with the push of a button. It is conceivable that two hundred years from now any Tom, Dick or Helen will be able to print up unlimited numbers of images produced today. Rightly or wrongly, those prints will likely have little real value beyond the cost of processing.

When a wet print is produced, there are much greater limitations on the photographer's ability to produce quality images in great numbers, even when the actual work is given over to a master darkroom worker. As a result the work is often more highly valued.

IMO, it is the difference in coffee cups produced in the many tens of thousands at Corning and the hand-thrown mugs of a skilled potter. The Corning cups may be technically perfect, but the labor of the potter is still recognized something unique, even though mugs produced today are not perfectly the same as those produced ten years ago.
I think deep down, most people feel much more connected to things produced by other people than to things produced by processes they see as automation and I think that they always will. When it comes to art, it's a human, not technology thing and some of us want to keep that connection by staying wet.

Eli
 
eli griggs said:
IMO, it is the difference in coffee cups produced in the many tens of thousands at Corning and the hand-thrown mugs of a skilled potter. The Corning cups may be technically perfect, but the labor of the potter is still recognized something unique, even though mugs produced today are not perfectly the same as those produced ten years ago.
I think deep down, most people feel much more connected to things produced by other people than to things produced by processes they see as automation and I think that they always will. When it comes to art, it's a human, not technology thing and some of us want to keep that connection by staying wet.

Eli
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, a similar argument was used against photography as an artistic medium during the early 20th century. It was believed that photography was a mechical process, and as such, had nothing to do with the visual arts of painting and drawing. A machine drew the pictures and any number of copies could be made of those results. And this was back in the day of wet plates, gum prints and platinum prints!

That said, I allways enjoyed my time in the darkroom and the sound of the water running through my print washer. But there's something to be said for being able to transmit a file off to a favored lab and have a 16"x20" print of Stockholm's city hall arrive at my parents' door in Nebraska while I'm still in Sweden.
 
The thread is two weeks old but anyway...

Wet: process my own film and prints. I've a M3.

I scan my negatives but that that's more as a larger contact sheet than anything else. I'm a geek so I've been hestitant about going digital - fearful that I would never process film or print again.

At the moment I want to get my darkroom skills back and in fact better than there were before I jump to digital. I was a photogrpaher in the Army and did some shooting for the NY Times. I stopped.

I've been taking courses at ICP and the three instructors I've had have better darkroom skills than I did at my best. I never used two developers and water bath and variable contrast papers had just started being used. I know Photoshop because of my occupation; my 'wet' printing skills need to increase before I jump to digital, if I ever jump.

The thought of carrying a camera that is B&W and color and has multiple ISO does excite me. The best I do with my M3 is carry several rolls of film and switch from say Tri-X to Pan F mid roll. Also being able to preview the shot at the moment of shooting is very appealing.

BTW, I was looking at a book of photographs of the Great Wall and many were printed on rice paper.

I don't really care how the image was made as long as its a good image; as someone I know said when we were discusiing developers: Its content, not film not developer. To extent that statement: "Its content not whether it was taken on a digital or film cemera."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom