Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I prefer a real darkroom but now must make do with an Epson R2400. I am actually very happy with the outcome. The only weakness is my lack of Photoshop skills.
srtiwari
Daktari
Gave up a wet darkroom years ago, and now use a Nikon 9000 and a HP printer. Just got a R2400 on a 'deal' thru Epson, but haven't used it yet.
Keith, I would be interested in the source for bulk inks that might save some money. And BTW, I love the IIIF.
Keith, I would be interested in the source for bulk inks that might save some money. And BTW, I love the IIIF.
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
like2fiddle
Curious
Darkroom for me. I already spend enough time in front of screens. It's not that I don't do anything digital, all my color photography is scanned to CD where I have it processed.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
We have a Epson Printer somewhere in the house but I have never used it...
I prefer working in a Darkroom...
I prefer working in a Darkroom...
Dogman
Mentor
I tried scanning and printing. It's easy. It's expensive. It's boring.
I'm not a great printer and I'm not particularly fond of the chemical darkroom. It's work. But like most work, it is more rewarding in the end than having some machine or another person do the task for you.
Giving someone a nice silver-based black and white print that you spent some time making yourself is also rewarding to both the recipient and the presenter.
I'm not a great printer and I'm not particularly fond of the chemical darkroom. It's work. But like most work, it is more rewarding in the end than having some machine or another person do the task for you.
Giving someone a nice silver-based black and white print that you spent some time making yourself is also rewarding to both the recipient and the presenter.
srtiwari
Daktari
Uwe, I was referring to Keith (message #12) and his remark about bulk inks. I had also, recently bought a Leica IIIf from him. In any case, thanks for the link.
All the best,
Subhash
All the best,
Subhash
R
rich815
Guest
nikon_sam said:
So you prefer working in the darkroom to something you have not tried? Make perfect sense!
jvr
Well-known
Used to do darkroom, now scan+print. LS4000ED for 35mm, Epson V700 for MF. Epson R2400 printer. Very good results in B&W. But inks go fast...
rlightfoot
Member
I think both have their merits. I've gone with darkroom for my vote, because I love the atmosphere and the magical feel of working in the darkroom...
It's like some kind of great secret is being coaxed from the dark. Even if your actual photos are rubbish!
I like working with computers as well, though... and modern printers are seriously impressive.
It's like some kind of great secret is being coaxed from the dark. Even if your actual photos are rubbish!
I like working with computers as well, though... and modern printers are seriously impressive.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Why sit on yer a$$ for photography when you can bop around in the darkroom?
imhere
Peter
I used to be darkroom but now use Nikon 5000 and Epson R2400
sfb_dot_com
Well-known
Develop B&W myself, transparency film to a lab, then scan with Epson V750 & print occasionally on R800. Bigger prints I used to take to my local Jessops, but now I live in Cornwall I'm going to have to use an online service, 'cos there aint no such thing round here 'mi lover' as they say. I use the Quadtone RIP for B&W which gives good results. There is just as much art and craft in creating a good scan, and digital print, just no smell of fixer. Leave an open bottle next to the 'puter and turn the lights off for that authentic Darkroom Experience.
Regards Andy
p.s http://homepage.mac.com/sfb_dot_com/Kernow/page17/page3/page3.html for some example.
Regards Andy
p.s http://homepage.mac.com/sfb_dot_com/Kernow/page17/page3/page3.html for some example.
nightfly
Well-known
I printed for years in a traditional darkroom. The "magic moment" of the print coming up is a thrill. As are the heady mix of chemicals, darkness and red light. The hours fly by (unfortunatley when you rent space, the meter is running). Sitting in front of a computer messing around with photoshop is much less mystical.
I started printing on the computer out of necessity as all the darkroom spaces I used in New York closed and I got lazy. I went with the easiest black and white printing solution I could find, black only ink in an Epson 1280. And the results are really good. The tonal range is impressive. No color shifts. If you like cold toned prints, I haven't seen much to rival it.
But I got the jones to go back into the darkroom recently and realized quite quickly, "what a pain in the *ss". Really to get something right requires test exposures and multiple prints and yadda yadda and it all feels so wasteful and time consuming. A trash can full of photo paper and strips and all the chemicals.
I really like shooting, I even like developing. But printing? The less time to get to my vision the better. Scan, a quick layer of levels, another one of curves, print, done. I can see pretty much what I'm getting on screen. Sure sometimes the heads are clogged or there are some strange streaks or whatever or something on the scanner, but all in all, digital has one me over. This is just on Epson archival matte, I've got some of the new papers sitting around waiting to get tested and I bet they'll be even better.
Maybe I'll put a red light next to my computer and open up some fixer for ambiance.
I started printing on the computer out of necessity as all the darkroom spaces I used in New York closed and I got lazy. I went with the easiest black and white printing solution I could find, black only ink in an Epson 1280. And the results are really good. The tonal range is impressive. No color shifts. If you like cold toned prints, I haven't seen much to rival it.
But I got the jones to go back into the darkroom recently and realized quite quickly, "what a pain in the *ss". Really to get something right requires test exposures and multiple prints and yadda yadda and it all feels so wasteful and time consuming. A trash can full of photo paper and strips and all the chemicals.
I really like shooting, I even like developing. But printing? The less time to get to my vision the better. Scan, a quick layer of levels, another one of curves, print, done. I can see pretty much what I'm getting on screen. Sure sometimes the heads are clogged or there are some strange streaks or whatever or something on the scanner, but all in all, digital has one me over. This is just on Epson archival matte, I've got some of the new papers sitting around waiting to get tested and I bet they'll be even better.
Maybe I'll put a red light next to my computer and open up some fixer for ambiance.
Vics
Mentor
I used to think I hated printing, then I got a Leica M3. Now I love printing and have even gone back to fiber papers! Go figure.
Vic
Vic
R
rich815
Guest
patrickjames said:
What printer and paper do you use for your digital prints Patrick?
amateriat
We're all light!
Well, I love both, hence my declining to vote. But I haven't the facilities for my own darkroom, even a temporary, bare-bones setup. Galfriend is a tad sensitive to chemicals, so it's enough of a challenge to simply soup my own film (but at least that's happening). I started messing with scanners and printers as far back as 1999 (starting with a used Nikon LS-10 film scanner and new Epson Stylus Pro 1200), and got up to speed fairly quickly. Current setup is a Minolta 5400 film scanner (first version), UMAX PowerLook 2100XL tabloid-size scanner with tranny adapter (for assorted scanning work, including digital contact sheets), and HP Photosmart Pro 8750, which is the very first A3-format printer I've found that prints b/w, as well as color, without the usual artifacts (bronzing, gloss-differential, etc.), even on glossy/semi-gloss paper. (Yes, I've checked out the Epsons; real, real good, but not quite to my taste.)
Both methods of printing are valid, and, IMO, will remain so. But sometimes we don't have the luxury of choice in the matter, which is why I embraced the digital darkroom with open arms from the get-go, even though I still have major issues with most digital cameras (love my new little Casio, though), and as a result shoot roughly 90% of my work on film.
(Which reminds me: one lovely thing about film is in the options it gives you: conventional darkroom printing, digital scanning/printing in your own home/studio, scanning and outsourcing to a commercial lab for printing on conventional, fiber-based silver paper, or inkjet paper in larger sizes than you might be able to print at home. Yes, you can take something you shot with a digital camera and have a physical film copy made, but that's a bit like carrying coals to Newcastle–or, on this side of the pond, Appalachia–isn't it?)
- Barrett
Both methods of printing are valid, and, IMO, will remain so. But sometimes we don't have the luxury of choice in the matter, which is why I embraced the digital darkroom with open arms from the get-go, even though I still have major issues with most digital cameras (love my new little Casio, though), and as a result shoot roughly 90% of my work on film.
(Which reminds me: one lovely thing about film is in the options it gives you: conventional darkroom printing, digital scanning/printing in your own home/studio, scanning and outsourcing to a commercial lab for printing on conventional, fiber-based silver paper, or inkjet paper in larger sizes than you might be able to print at home. Yes, you can take something you shot with a digital camera and have a physical film copy made, but that's a bit like carrying coals to Newcastle–or, on this side of the pond, Appalachia–isn't it?)
- Barrett
Sisyphus
Sisyphus
I prefer the darkroom. I am able to disconnect from society--internet, TV, telephone, bills, etc --for a few hours, and have chance to just think about photogaphy and my work.
amateriat
We're all light!
Believe me, I grok your point more than you might imagine.Sisyphus said:
At the moment, I can't avail myself of my before-mentioned digital darkroom, because...well, it's a long story, but the bottom line is that it's not the "inner sanctum" that a dedicated wet darkroom generally is. An old-school darkroom is a place where you can pretty much leave the rest of your life behind you, if only for a handful of hours, and essentially hyperfocus on The Work, perhaps with a bit of musical accompiniment, but nothing else. Makes you wonder if we had stolen a move on the TM movement of the 70s!
And this points up one of the problems with digital: in my case, every damn thing is "connected." Scanners, printers, AND the Internets when I need some damn driver update for whatever reason. The wet darkroom brooks no such distractions. All it asks for is light-tightness and (on the wet side, anyway) running water. My tiny digital "atelier" has only 3-1/2 walls, and since I no longer live alone, I have to fight for every hour of concentration. Digital is about interconnectedness, but the creative spirit (for lack of a handier term) often wants to cut the cord with damn near everyone for at least a short span of time to work and sort stuff out, from between the ears to the paper, whatever the path from the former to the latter. Nevertheless, I'm working on the problem as I write this. 'Twas ever thus, don't you think?
- Barrett
ErnestoJL
Well-known
The old fashioned wet darkroom makes me feel better than anything else.
There is a reason behind it: I can be out of everything else and I am the only one to blame if something goes wrong. No f****** soft or hard problems, nor ink or cable connections problems. Just myself.
So, I think it´s the only decent way to make fine prints. Other are just digital (say automated or whatever) prints.
No signature in them (IMHO)!
Ernesto
There is a reason behind it: I can be out of everything else and I am the only one to blame if something goes wrong. No f****** soft or hard problems, nor ink or cable connections problems. Just myself.
So, I think it´s the only decent way to make fine prints. Other are just digital (say automated or whatever) prints.
No signature in them (IMHO)!
Ernesto