Why Did You Quit the Digital Darkroom ?

[CameraQuest]

The title says it all.

Stephen

 

[Requin]

I havent't quit but now I'm back in additional wet b&w processing and have rediscovered the joy of film developing and my darkroom.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I quit it because I realized that I spent the last 4 years trying to make files from my Leicas M8 and M9 look like Tri-X developed in Rodinal, when there was and there still is a more logical, easier, cheaper and more consistent way to achieve the wanted result: shoot Tri-X and develop in Rodinal.

(I still use Lightroom to process GoPro files, since they don't like Rodinal)

 

[zsas]

I work at a computer all day for a living....when I realized that digital meant working at a computer in my off time too (jpg, raw, Lightroom, Nik, bla, bla...), well, the decision was almost made for me.....built a darkroom, got some film cameras, and couldn't be happier...

 

[sepiareverb]

Never, for color. I won't go back to C-printing ever. Still haven't started on the digital B&W. If there was a reliable B&W digital enlarger I might.

 

[shadowfox]

I work at a computer all day for a living....when I realized that digital meant working at a computer in my off time too (jpg, raw, Lightroom, Nik, bla, bla...), well, the decision was almost made for me.....built a darkroom, got some film cameras, and couldn't be happier...

I think we'll see a lot of answers in this vein.

Digital darkroom is so versatile for preparing photobooks, online printing services, and cataloging my film prints. I'll never give it up.

But when I want to create, my real darkroom is my refuge.

 

[Rayt]

I shoot all formats up to 8x10 and the plan was to scan and do inkjet output. However I find my b/w prints lacking in tonality compared to the fiber prints I made before. Is it due to my lack of computer skills? Most probably. Will improving those skills result in wet room like prints? I don't know.

 

[Godfrey]

I shoot all formats up to 8x10 and the plan was to scan and do inkjet output. However I find my b/w prints lacking in tonality compared to the fiber prints I made before. Is it due to my lack of computer skills? Most probably. Will improving those skills result in wet room like prints? I don't know.

Yes and yes. It also has a dependency upon just exactly what your printing system consists of ... What printer are you using, with what inks and papers.

Making exhibition quality prints, whether in a wet lab or with image processing and digital printing, is an art that requires the right equipment, the right materials, development of skills, practice, and insight into how to get what you want from a particular photograph. There are few if any shortcuts.

G

 

[Uncle Fester]

Digital never really caught on with me. I love the traditional silver process and I sincerely hope that film, paper and chemicals do not become unobtainable in my lifetime. For me, that would be a tragedy.

 

[clayne]

Selenium toned silver gelatin fiber prints.

(never had a digital darkroom other than a scanner)

 

[swifty63]

i don't get any satisfaction from ink-whatever prints of my b&w.
i'm a lousy wet darkroom printer but the end product gives me a nice feeling!

 

[Photo_Smith]

Having been a professional photographer who owned his own lab for 20 years, I've printed countless C & R types and B&W. In the early 1990's we invested in workstations, scanners and large format inkjets. I guess Photoshop 2 was where I personally jumped in, outputting to a Fuji Pictrostat.
Looking back the quality was awful, way poorer than C types of the time and it wasn't until we bought the Durst Lambda and early Fuji and Agfa D minilabs quality was 'good enough'

B&W though has for my needs at least never been good enough. I have several reference negatives I printed a while back and had drum scanned, despite trying on many different printer paper combinations, editing profiles etc. I've never come close enough to be satisfied with any inkjet/paper/ink-set combination.

Personally Its been a Quixotic pastime trying to mimic something that already exists, I mean Tri-x on Chloro-bromide warm base paper?
Did i really spend that much money time and effort re-inventing the wheel?

So now I print B&W myself and send colour out for printing as I find colour inkjets far from economic compared to outputting to something like a Durst Lambda (for the sizes I print).
Of course i have inkjets both Epson and HP and do still use them, mainly for proofs and the odd A4.

Others may feel differently but for my use wet prints are a high watermark, and one that inks have not reached (as yet) I see little point in investing any more time in mimicking something that I can do less expensively and with better results.

 

[thegman]

I only had a brief flirtation with Lightroom etc. I didn't really like it as I spent all day in front of a computer anyway. Also, in applying 'B&W film, red filter' to a digital image, for me it felt inauthentic. Obviously we all have our own ideas about what's authentic etc. but for me it just felt like a part of the hobby I didn't want to do.

But probably the main reason I gave up digital processing was that I gave up digital cameras, to return to film cameras. It wasn't that the digital camera wasn't good, I actually really quite liked my Nikon D7000, but for some reason I just didn't feel compelled to use it. I saw it on my desk with a thin coat of dust on it one day and realised that digital was not for me.

I wish it was, I just spent £100 on film for a trip, and still worry if I got the right stuff (should have got XP2 in 120!). Digital takes away that worry, and the X-Ray concerns, the backups etc. For some reason though, I just can't work up an enthusiasm for it.

 

[Frontman]

I am another who hates spending more of my time in front of a computer, it makes my hobby too much like work, and I work enough already. I find analog photography fun, and a good way to escape from the 24/7 digital world.

 

[slidesandthecity]

I grew up in the beginning of the 'digital era' and needed a DSLR, when I was 15 [analog was no option for me back then], but my mother did not allow me to buy one until I was 18. So I bought a K-x a week after my 18th birthday. When I told my grandfather about my newest purchase, he said "Oh, I might have something for you", gave me his OM2n and that moment digital was effectively dead for me.

 

[squareshooter]

I will use any tool that will do the job. This year I have been blowing up a lot of my b&w film photos to a very large size and displaying them at art galleries. However, I look at the photos in the galleries taken with digital cameras and printed digitally and I do not like them. They have a phoney, superficial, artificial look, as if someone used inferior color film of yesterday, like Anscocolor. I suppose digital prints will get better but I've moved back to using a film darkroom for stuff I really care about.

 

[sepiareverb]

Making exhibition quality prints, whether in a wet lab or with image processing and digital printing, is an art that requires the right equipment, the right materials, development of skills, practice, and insight into how to get what you want from a particular photograph. There are few if any shortcuts.

G

Amen to that. I'd get practice higher up on that list tho.

 

[L Collins]

I quit it because I realized that I spent the last 4 years trying to make files from my Leicas M8 and M9 look like Tri-X developed in Rodinal, when there was and there still is a more logical, easier, cheaper and more consistent way to achieve the wanted result: shoot Tri-X and develop in Rodinal.

My sentiments exactly.

And, no matter how hard you try, and however good SEP2 is, you still can't make them look like Tri-X. So I gave up....and went back to shooting Tri-X.

 

[Godfrey]

Amen to that. I'd get practice higher up on that list tho.

Well, the list is in lowest to highest priority. You need the equipment and skills, then you practice and gain insight. In the end, the media, equipment, and skills become a given, and what really pushes you forward is the insight.

G

 

[Godfrey]

I quit it because I realized that I spent the last 4 years trying to make files from my Leicas M8 and M9 look like Tri-X developed in Rodinal, when there was and there still is a more logical, easier, cheaper and more consistent way to achieve the wanted result: shoot Tri-X and develop in Rodinal.

LOL. "If you want to see Tri-X, shoot Tri-X." ;-)

I don't use any of the "film effect" stuff when processing my photos. To me it's a silly endeavor. I just process my photos to the way I want them to look.

G