wet print or scan to digital print

[nikon_sam]

Wet print B&W only...Color stuff normally gets developed then scanned...I don't print any of it...I haven't needed any color prints for years...the kids and wife do though...

 

[percepts]

So it seems the single biggest method of printing is black and white wet prints which is good to know but overall a lot more people digital print. I thought there would be more people wet printing colour since this is an enthusiast forum. Whilst not a very scientific poll I hope I can read from it that black and white film and paper demand and supply are safe for the time being.

 

[ully]

All of the above.

 

[shyoon]

No printing at the moment, sadly. I really, really want to get into wet printing though - just need some space and some more time in the day...

 

[cnphoto]

scan for web, wet prints for physical display.

i have mostly all all of the gear i need for a darkroom, but no space. i rent/hire out a darkroom at the moment, i once hired it out for 8 days straight and spent 8 days, 8+ hours a day in the dark alone. can't wait to do that again.

 

[jpberger]

i print bw film in the darkroom, and i print color in both ra4 and inkjet. all digital photos are inkjet printed.

anybody do lightjet prints, aside from fuji frontier machine prints? do prints from film look the same, and do prints from digital look better?

They are subtly different-- better is in the eye of the beholder.
The better labs I know all have icc profiles for thier lighjet machines available so you can soft proof, but many also want you to stick to srgb colour (probably so you don't blame them when your print looks like poop) I had some 11x14 colour night shots on 35mm fuji superia printed on super gloss that way and they were really great-- especially since I could add a little sharpening etc. It looks an awful lot like cibachrome. I would go that way over inkjet anyday, especially since I don't have to worry about owning or maintaining the machine. However I've got a membership at a darkroom with a creonite processor, so lately I've been optical printing colour, and really enjoy the process-- I especially like the serendipitous aspect of making some minor tweak that makes everything fall into place, sometimes in an unexpected way. I'm more inclined to play around, espcially since the cost per sheet is only 30cents or so once I'm up an running. I also find the colour and tonal range is better than I am able to get with my scanner-- reds browns and greens have more richness. I'm sure if I had a wide gamut monitor, an imacon scanner and lots of patience I could do better in some respects- the one limitation of optical printing is that negatives with an wide range of luminance values are very tricky to print, even though they scan without issues. One the whole I'm loving the darkroom.

 

[Keith]

This thread has been running a while now and we learn as we go. I have quickly come to realise that black and white images from a digital file that are being viewed on a monitor will print very differently to what you are seeing on your computer no matter how you set your monitor up to match your printer output! An image that appears to be over sharpened on an LCD will look completely different when printed ... sometimes I think it would just be easier to admit defeat and wet print!

 

[Ronald M]

Why use film if you don`t wet print?

 

[DabCan10]

I was pretty shocked to get back some film from a pro lab in Paris (that came highly recommended from many) to find that they had scanned and digitally printed all the negatives. Even more interesting, to have my images scanned for me would have cost 1 euro per image on top of all that, eventhough they had already done all the scanning during the printing process...

 

[Keith]

Why use film if you don`t wet print?

It's opinions and comments like this that could have kept us all huddled in caves around our fires ... wearing our animal skins!

There are things you can do with a negative and a scanner that you can't do with conventional darkroom technique ... it's a choice!

 

[tlitody]

This thread has been running a while now and we learn as we go. I have quickly come to realise that black and white images from a digital file that are being viewed on a monitor will print very differently to what you are seeing on your computer no matter how you set your monitor up to match your printer output! An image that appears to be over sharpened on an LCD will look completely different when printed ... sometimes I think it would just be easier to admit defeat and wet print!

That figures since screen pixel resolution is so low. Only when screen pixel resolution approaches what you can get paper will they begin to look the same but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

The interesting thing is that we are all quite happy to look at screen resolution images all day but wouldn't tolerate it in a print. Or maybe we would, or rather those that aren't in the business of making prints might accept lower quality simply because they are not used to seeing high quality prints.

 

[topoxforddoc]

I wet print B&W frm film. I will scan B&W negs for web posting, but I still prefer silver prints. Colour slides are scanned (but I must get some Cibachromes done before that all dies out).

 

[Mcary]

Option 5, Scan to wet print via the Durst Theta silver halide printer Ilford black & white paper black & white chemistry.

 

[Ducky]

I've tried both. I've also gone to digi and back. I am happy with BW film processed in my bathroom, scanned on my V500 and inkjet printed on my printer. I preselect on a small light table so the hi-res scanning and printing is limited to the shots I like.

 

[Chris101]

I wetprint nearly all of my B&W. Except proofs and "contact sheets", which I scan and sometimes print. Darkroom printing is just so much fun though. I much prefer printing on double weight fiber paper, but have been working with RC lately, on a project that requires flat prints. It's just so easy and fast, it feels like digital!

I used to do Cibachrome from medium format Ektachrome transparencies, but as I am colorblind (I always relied on the eyes of "strangers", well, girlfriends) I now do color digitally, where I can 'color by numbers'.

 

[Paterson]

I wet print most of my B+W film, I still prefer the look and quality of a wet print. Scanning and printing on a good rag paper has a different look and feel, it is still wonderful. For me it really depends on the feeling I want to convey to the viewer.

P

 

[taskoni]

I don't have space for a dark room so I have to scan instead of wet printing my B&W films. To mention I am not happy with my cheap scanner too.
So I develop and scan my negatives good enough for preview on my computer, and once I like some shots I am putting them a side for pro-scanning and hopefully for wet printing one day. We don't have public dark rooms in Lithuania as far as I know...
Regards,
b.

 

[Mablo]

My situation is similar to Taskoni's. No room for an enlarger so I'm scanning and collecting negatives. Occasionally I might order a print or two from commercial sources. Maybe some day I can wet print.

 

[GSNfan]

During film days, a print was the only way to see a photograph in a decent size and appreciate its form and content. A print was the final photograph.

With computers and their monitors, the same can be achieved but without using paper, hence a digital print.

Scanning the negatives and processing them is like printing.

 

[dfoo]

You don't need much to wet print. An enlarger, lens, paper, 3 trays, dektol and fix and a light proof room. That's all I had when I started, and that was in a small apartment. I used my office for the first couple of times, and then later a closet. Its not as great as my current darkroom, but I still got nice results (better & cheaper than I got scanning with a bad flatbed scanner!)

Here is a blog post I made on my first print. http://silverprint.posterous.com/st-michaels-church-beijing-china-2007