B/W printing - in a darkroom or a digital print with a scanner & printer?

B/W printing - in a darkroom or a digital print with a scanner & printer?

  • Darkroom

    Votes: 149 54.6%

  • Scan & view/print

    Votes: 137 50.2%
  • Total voters
    273
darkroom for me, although I use the scanner as a contactprint proofs for choosing the photos for enlargement. The possibility to buid myself a very tiny darkroom (cca 1.1 x 1.2 meter) more than two years ago led me in fact to full analog photography (not counting the scans) and I sold my D70 dslr then. I have never looked back and am happy. I also work with comupers all day and classic darkroom is a resting place for me.
 
MartinP said:
I have to work with computers for my job - I don't want to do so in my hobby.
Click to expand...

Often, this sentiment resonates with me strongly... except when it comes to print work. I find settling down into the "digital darkroom" to be rather relaxing. My printing to-date has been on the Epson 3800's in the PCNW digital lab -- gorgeous printers for both B&W and color work. I've also worked a bit with hybrid printing: making digital negatives on transparency film for contact printing (palladium).

My first foray into wet darkroom work starts tonight. It'll be very interesting to compare the feel of the two ways of working...
 
No chance to develop and print at home, no space for that. So I shoot 35mm and send it to a good lab, which could have been included in the poll as an option. If you don't shoot lots of film every week it can be a handy choice, apart for the hassle of going to the lab.

About the costs, what would be less expensive, for a 35mm roll a week, in the mid-term? (including the setting up price)
-darkroom
-scan and print
-photo lab
 
Keith said:
I would like to do some black and white wet printing but the reality of a darkroom may never eventuate. I am however a heartbeat away from buying an Epson R2400 printer which I have heard is THE printer for black and white and it does up to A3. Ink costs worry me though and a few mistakes during the learning process and getting to know the printer's capabilities ... could be costly!

There is a bulk ink system available for this printer that saves a lot of money apparently and actually cuts printing costs by 75%. It also uses the dye based chromatic inks that have become important if you want prints to last long term.

It would be interesting to see a cost comparison of the two methods over the long term. :confused:
Click to expand...

Keith:
I was considering the same route you are until I came across an article by David Brooks a few months ago in the 'Bug. The link he referenced is below. The Epson R1800 since the R1900 came out is quite cost-effective. These are archival inks and produce gorgeous prints. You do have to tinker a bit, but it is well worth it!

http://www.inksupply.com/R1800_bo.cfm

Let me know what you think. :D
 
Darkroom the results with a tmax 400 even with 35mm is beyond compare with computer printers. At least if you have the darkroom skills. By the way a darkroom is much more fun.
 
I reopened my darkroom after a year of digital. They both have their place. I just wish I could get a Nikon lens to image on film like the Leica lenses. They will not and I would rather not carry two systems.

Scanning my new 100 foot roll of plus x seems to be more of a challenge than Delta 100 or tri x was as the highlights blow easily . I need to work on it some.

However the prints are simply stunning, fine grained, sharp, nice tonal range.
 
The total cost of my darkroom gear was about $300 back in 2002. Since then I've added a second Nova 3-slot B/W 8x10 processor and an 11 by 14 Nova 4-slot processor - which needed a crack repaired. The two enlargers reside on or in a roll away cabinet and the slot processors reside on a cart for a microwave oven. The capital costs are fixed, there are no needed hardware or software improvements.

If I only did 35mm a transition to the electronic / digital darkroom would be easier, but alas half the time, I prefer medium format photography, especially 6x9.

The cost to transition is a bit prohibitive for me at the moment, seeing as I'd like to own a Nikon Coolscan 9000 scanner, high end desktop computer, printer in the Epson 2880 range and update my present software.

The trouble with my traditional B/W darkroom set up is that it still works, does not eat much cash flow and rolls into the back portion of my walk-in closet when not in use. The digital B/W work flow beckons, but for now I'm content with color prints from my two digital cameras printed on two archaic dye-sub printer which were bought second-hand.
 
Last edited:
I prefer darkroom work, but don't really have the time to set one up right now.

In the last year I cleaned out two darkrooms, one at work that set me up to handle up to 4x5 and one that belonged to a deceased friend that's good for 6x6 and smaller. I've got this stored away, probably going to get moved to wherever I end up next year, and stored away there.

I've got this gear but I'm still debating a new V700 scanner so I can archive a bunch of 4x5 negatives I inherited. If I was smart I'd just sell it all and go digital.
 
I'm re-planning my darkroom now, as it's in an unfinished room in my basement.
The plan is for a permanent, completely finished room/installation with storage, ventilation, the works !
I can currently print up to 11x14, but I'm on the lookout for 16 x 20 trays.
 
Wow, the poll is almost 50/50, with the darkroom taking a slight lead!

I just started a B&W course at the local university, just to refresh my memory of not having souped my own for about 30 years now. Used to have a small darkroom in my parents second bathroom baclk then. But my wife and I just bought a house last winter, and I'm getting the urge to build my own darkroom in the basement this winter.
 
Tonight I went to Home Depot and bought about $25 worth of PVC piping and got my sink's drain pump hooked up to the house's main sewer line. Couldnt believe how simple it was to do.
 
I bought most all of my darkroom equipment between 1961 and 1968. It's paid for. I can look at a negative and have a pretty good idea of exposure and which variable contrast filter(s) to use, the projcted image on the baseboard tells me where to dodge, where to burn in and whether this area should be through another filter. There ain't no way that anybody is gonna convince me that I should relearn everthing that I know "because this is the twenty-first century and digital is the wave of the future"! Another consideration is that collectors and gallery owners place a much higher value on silver gelatin prints on fiber based paper.
 
I think that the best results still are from the darkroom for tones and richness but obviously if you need to edit in photoshop you have to scan. I have a coolscan LS50 but i find that you end up with a lot of grain in comparison to a wet print. If you need photoshop then maybe wet print and then copy or scan the print to give the best quality I have done this on occasions and have been very happy with the results.
 
Different media have different looks and that certainly goes for ink jet. People will naturally have preferences for their own work, but if you still think ink jet is inferior, you probably haven't gotten around much. Check out the work of Gregory Conniff or Joel Leivick for instance. I just saw a show of Leivick's work last week in San Francisco, and his large B&W ink jet prints are really beautiful.

Cheers,
Gary
 
I print in a darkroom now but I'm excited about making some ink jet prints too, specifically as a way to make a book.
 
I just came outta the darkroom tonight. It was my first real printing session in about 2 years. We've moved into a house and Im building a darkroom. It was a very nice evening to say the least. I felt quite clumsy and out of sync being that it was so long since I had printed. But it was a new beginning for me.
 
We've already rehashed this here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48125
in a thread started by Bill Pierce called "Wet or Dry".

Here's what I wrote:

Al Kaplan01-18-2008, 15:38
I'm staying wet. I know it, I understand it, I seem to burn and dodge and pick contrast filters without concious thought after doing it since 1961. Learning a whole new medium at this point makes little sense to me when there's such an ongoing rapid change in hardware with digital. My Omega B-22XL with a 50mm El Nikkor and 80mm Componon still function just fine. Best of all it's paid for, and has paid for itself God only knows how many times over. "If it ain't broke don't fix it!"
 
For me thereis no comparison one is exciting the other a bit dull. With a the darkroom I feel I'm in the same game as the old masters. I hone my craft and and for a relatively small outlay I have chance of competing. With digital it's always the next gizmo and it comes at a cost. The pros can afford the expense of huge inkjet prints which I don't think I can. Last night I printed from my 6x7 negatives on 12x16 and got a print with the tonality I crave. I understand I have much to master but I feel it's only me preventing progress not my ability to throw thousands at the latest camera, scanner or printer.

Also I love the red light the gurgle and holdng that print in my hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top