I don't miss the smells, the mess and the interminable test strips necessary to make just one print.I'm really should reactivate my darkroom asap, I miss that so much
It's still the print on paper which is my thing
never ever I'll move to digital printing. Even with finest paper it's never the same.I don't miss the smells, the mess and the interminable test strips necessary to make just one print.
Get youself a decent scanner and an A3+ (or bigger) printer and experience the joy of prints, without the worry of whether the weather is too warm/cold. What's more, once you've prepared the image in (software of choice), you can make as many copies as you need without having to go through all that printing plan stuff every time.
Unless, of course, you're a masochist
never ever I'll move to digital printing. Even with finest paper it's never the same.
In that case, do what we do: scan the neg and adjust it in Photoshop (other software is available), then send the file to Ilford's excellent Lambda printing service - we have nine 30" x 24" prints done that way and they are simply "gob-smacking".never ever I'll move to digital printing. Even with finest paper it's never the same.
The only thing I find boring about the hybrid workflow is de-spotting the image in Photoshop. But then I would have to do that with inks to every wet print after it was printed.I have an Epson A3+ printer, I've used the best papers. I can and have made excellent Inkjet prints using archivally permanent pigments. However the process is boring and less creative than darkroom printing, takes longer, costs are about the same.
My guess is that the odourless stuff is for those who have to convert their bathroom and the rest of the family don't want to mix perfumes… By comparison, the smell of fixer seems entirely tolerable (and odourless fixer is available).
Absolutely!In this digital/wet debate, everything that everybody says holds an element of truth, but in creative work (we do think we're creative, don't we?) personal preferences are important.
Not always. Helen is very particular about how her prints look. Not being particularly tech savvy, she will stand behind me, issuing edicts as to how to dodge, burn or change the contrast of a part of the image.I don't think anyone under estimates the work needed to make high quality scan and subsequent Inkjet print. However steps on a computer are reversible and a lot of experimenting can be done without incurring material costs.
I learned the basics of darkroom printing nearly fifty years ago. Without that, I think I would not have the same skills for the digital side of things.Darkroom printing is definitely more challenging, it becomes easier with experience to the point of being second nature, actaulayy subsequently scanning to make prints becomes very easy with darkroom experience. This is why almost all Photo degree course have re-installed darkrooms and require students to learn to print again.
Indeed. My beef in some conversations I have had, is that some "wetties" come across as having the opinion that, if it's digital, it can never be as good as silver gelatine. Thankfully, Ilford have given the lie to that assumptionThere's nothing archaic in making silver gelatin prints, using glass plate, alternative processes etc. It's not for everyone but that has to be respected for those that do.
I think that is an excellent idea.One option which a friend who had no darkroom used was shoot LF, scan, make digital negatives and Platinum/Palladium print. Edwin Land predicted the hybridisation and Analog/Digital crossovers over 30 years ago, I have a Platinum print made from a digital camera file. We all choose our routes individually.
I started teaching photography nearly 50 years agoI learned the basics of darkroom printing nearly fifty years ago. Without that, I think I would not have the same skills for the digital side of things. . . . . . . . . . .
In the end, it is all down to "what turns you on". Somewhere in the back of my head, I would love to go back to a non-digital approach but, honestly, after so many years of hybrid work, I find that I prefer sitting at a screen to faffing around in a darkroom. Which more than likely makes me just a little bit weird
Oh, and I never could get the hang of spotting prints
Essentially, yes. Ilford have a "laser" printer that exposes silver gelatine paper that is then developed as per a traditional darkroom print. As I mentioned earlier, the quality is superb.Joannah's Ilford process seems to be doubly hybrid. A wet negative is scanned and adjusted digitally and then printed on wet paper, (although not sloshed in trays of course.) Have I got that right? I'm not quite sure what this says about the ultimate qualities of either method.
Heheheh. Although Ilford do return their prints in a tube, which can emulate thatFor a well-made print, (and that's important) I've found that the only thing that always distinguishes wet from dry is that so far, inkjet printers can't do curly edges as well as darkrooms.
I have used matt photo rag papers before but have settled on a satin or lustre finish that is neither glossy nor matt. IOW, as similar to traditional paper as possible. For B&W, I have settled on Baryta paper for digital printing as there really isn't anything quite like it to my mind.On further thought, I've realised that there is another difference. There are many more paper surfaces available for digital printing and some strongly textured surfaces might be a clue
That subject probably needs another thread. Does anyone here use textured papers?