Would you give up rangefinder photography without BW wet prints?

Much as I love and respect the wet silver print, I have no means of making one properly, even though I own the tools to do so (no proper space to set it all up, even temporarily). I can, and do, develop my own film without problem, but also shoot a lot of chromogenic b/w for its covenience. I love, and prefer, the workflow of film and a good RF camera (or three), and that's not likely to change soon. But I've come to love the good film scanner I have, and have found my way to making really good b/w inkjet prints (search the archives for "HP 8750" and you'll find me and mh2000 raving about this printer, seemingly to excess, I'll admit ;)). My "hybrid" setup works to my satisfaction. But we're all different, which is part of what makes all this interesting.


- Barrett
 
In my case, I haven't used a darkroom in about 20 years. It just hasn't been in the cards. I would like to, but no. I also don't use rangefinders as my main camera. I use what I think I will be most comfortable using at the time for what I want to accomplish. Often as not, that is an SLR, maybe a folder, or even a P&S for snapshots of the family.

So no, I wouldn't. I understand your angst. However, it will be easier than you think if you only need 35mm size negatives enlarged, as I suspect is the case. Look around. Check some books or look at Roger Hick's site on setting up small bathroom sized darkrooms. The end of the world hasn't come yet.
 
I truly love wet printing. It would be very difficult for me to do photography without wet printing. Perhaps I would get used to it, perhaps not. I scan and Photoshop, too. I don't mind doing it. It just does not give me as much pleasure. That's all there's to it.
 
When you read the biographies of well known/successful/famous photographers, they, after becoming more successful, hired a dark room technician or worked with a lab. I have worked & managed a lab. I did not find working in a wet darkroom satisfing but rather hard work. I much prefer to send everything to a lab that I trust, even if it means waiting inordinate amounts of time...but then again I am under any time pressure.
 
For me there is little relationship between wet printing and rangefinder photography. You can take the M2 from my cold dead hands (as that Ben Hur guy said)...

I am happy to scan and print digitally. Yes, there is no comparison between a wet print (even on rc paper) and a digital print but if I had no choice, I will take the digital print.

When I got my DSLR, I decided to end the debate in my mind once and for all. I took a series of identical shots with the DSLR and a film camera (Kiev rangefinder with Helios 103 lens). Scanned the film and then printed the DSLR shots and film shots. Comparing the prints, I could see a difference. Film won.
So for me, although wet prints are great, I have no problem scanning and creating a digital print (especially color). It is still better than using a digital camera.

I also have a makeshift bathroom darkroom. It's a PITA to set up but it works and once I gulp down a shot of dektol, I can go on all night... ;)
 
I wouldn't give up rangefinder photography, and I don't think you should either.
I've bought 2 used enlargers, along with a free box of "stuff" for $20.00, each time.
At a previous camera show, I bought a Nikon enlarger lens, $30.00

I really like printing too (very challenging), so I understand what you mean.
If it's feasible, look into setting yourself up. The investment will probably be a joke.

Imagine, for the price of a few magazines, I bought decent enlargers that are fine for an amateur like me. In a way, there's has never been a better time to be shooting film !
 
If every camera I own, my printer, and my (now in storage) dark room equipment was taken away and I was given a lowest of low-end P&S camera and a rinky dink plug-n-play printer, I'd STILL be taking and printing photographs.
 
A pitty that the reduce their opening hours there at the college's darkroom. But - be also very glad that you have one accessable. My college does have an own one, too, but :bang: that's what I don't unterstand at all they allow usage to art-students only. And I'm not an art-student, but history. So...:rolleyes:

I have bought an used enlarger some time ago for little money (40$ or so), but did not have time and space to set it up and use yet.
 
I learned wet printing at the age of 10.. I can make a half-decent print, but don't really care for printing in general, gelatin silver or not.

I use film rangefinders because they're nice and natural for me to use.
 
Print for many many years at my parents photo Studio and lab, then as a Pro Printer in Pro Lab for a decade. Not any more, Life has changed quite a bit since then.
I do prefer take pictures than spend hours in the dark. I don't even try to develop film any more (unless is Tri-x ou Tmax2). Use C-41 for everything and some slides. Scan them and print.. on a printer!
Not the same, no, just different!
Allows me to use the RF's and SLR's and even the DLSR's! I love to have options! Enjoying what I have and not what I miss.
 
I didn't have any access to a darkroom for 25 years and have scanned (Epson V700) and printed (Epson Stylus Pro 3800) some of my photos. BW and C41 film I developed myself, though. Just recently I got an Durst M601 with CLS66 color-head for a bargain (together with a EL-Nikkor 50/4.0 and Fujinon 80/4.5) and started wet-printing again (in our bathroom with some black curtains) using Ilford's Multigrade RC paper.

The results I get with scanning / ink-jet look better to me, better contrast and sharper ... :eek: Additionally, the whole process of scanning, some small level-adjustments in PS and printing take about 10 minutes for one photo, why I need two hours (with setting everything up) for 5 to 6 wet-prints. Also, due to space limitations, I have to set up the enlarger on the floor, which is less than ideal for accurate framing and focusing ... :(
 
I would give up on film for sure and given that the only digital RF is the M8 i think i would give up RFs too.

Scanning negs is an absolute no go for me..gives you the worst of both worlds...endless hours (far more than any digital photographer) in front of your computer AND the cost of film.
 
trix said:
I would give up on film for sure and given that the only digital RF is the M8 i think i would give up RFs too.

Scanning negs is an absolute no go for me..gives you the worst of both worlds...endless hours (far more than any digital photographer) in front of your computer AND the cost of film.
Click to expand...

How, if I may ask, do you work now? :)
 
I began making photographs and developing and printing negatives when I was 12 years old. My father gave me a Kodak box camera that probably used 620 film or something close - a long rectangle I guess you could say. But it was large enough to make a perfectly ok contact print. I would make pictures in the service porch at night, hang a black cloth over the door window, lay my Kodak medalist piece of paper on top of the washing machine, place the negative over it, and then carefully lower a piece of glass over them both. The weight of the glass would press the negative flat against the paper just right, and then I'd turn on the overhead light for X number of seconds. I recall experimenting with with both time and bulb intensity (10 Watt, 20 Watt, etc.) until I got it just right for a normally exposed negative.

And so, with few exceptions, I've had a wet darkroom most of my life. In 1971 I bought a Simmons-Omega B22XL enlarger (does both 35 and 120) and some lenses, Rodenstok Omegarons and Nikors. Later I acquired a Beseler 4X5 enlarger. I still have all of this equipment. I find it's hard to wear out.

I am still awed when I view a properly printed black and white 16X20" print made from a 35mm, 120mm, 645, or 6X7 or 4X5 negative. I don't believe digital black and white prints made from Digital cameras are in the same league.

Only now, due to an expired lease, I haven't a darkroom. But a third, unused bedroom in my house is about to change its name. Fortunately a bathroom is on the other side of one of its walls, so plumbing is not a problem.

In the meantime I have been learning the wonderful world of digital processing (flatbed scanner, film scanner). Developing film at home is easy: change bag and light-tight Nikkor stainless steel developing tanks. But for an older guy like myself, learning Photoshop and both film and flatbed scanners has been an unwelcomed chore; currently a necessity, however.

Sure, I've got a DSLR, but it's purely for commercial use (most of the time) where for the client, content is more important than high image quality. That said, color photography quality with a DSLR is frequently a pleasant surprise.

So for me, RF and SLR photography remain pretty much in the realm of black and white; for color photography I use the digital camera. It seems easy enough for me; when I pick up a film camera I am suddenly color-blind, see only in black and white; my eye isn't seduced by pretty colors and thus I pay more attention to composition. When I pick up a digital camera suddenly it's technicolor time and it's fun. Which, by the way is what I love about photography - it's always such great fun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a darkroom I haven't used for years... scanning and RF photography work great for me. Get an Epson pigment printer or HP *dye-based* printer that does blank and white prints and you may end up loving scanning. You will get *real* b&w prints that look great... and that, along with shooting cameras you love is what it is all about, right?
 
I find the exact opposite. For b&w prints that matter scanning film gets me there way more reliably and mostly in shorter time than shooting digital (that's why I do it! I've got a DSLR on the shelf and good lenses). BW400CN is really your friend... and cheap proofs mean you only scan the ones that you really want to... if you are just interested in dumping hundreds of ok images on the web, by all means, shoot a crappy digital and you will get what you need... I shoot for photos that I can be proud of.

>>Scanning negs is an absolute no go for me..gives you the worst of both worlds...endless hours (far more than any digital photographer) in front of your computer AND the cost of film.
 
Contact sheets are the traditional "cheap proofs". Generations of photographers, editors, and art directors managed to work with them, just like they looked at pages of color slides on a light table.

The gallery where I show puts a little card next to each piece telling the medium. With B&W prints it will say either "silver print" or "ink jet print".
 
Last edited:
mh2000:

I have an Epson R2400 wide-carriage printer with, among other inks, matte black, light black, and light-light black. I think it's the type of printer you mentioned?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom