Digital darkroom

Argue all you like about the relative merits of digital and film
cameras, but I dearly love my neg scanner. Before I get jumped on, I do
agree that I can't get the same perfection of tone that I have managed
in my best efforts at wet printing. This is more than made up for with
the ease of set-up, experimentation, and the things I can do in
Photoshop that would take me forever by the old methods.
Rather than disappear into my cupboard all night, I can work in the
light and make no strange smells or stains. I can also work on a single
negative without all the fuss of making up and wasting a whole batch of
chemicals.
Much better!
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday

"Paul Friday" wrote in message
...
Argue all you like about the relative merits of digital and film
cameras, but I dearly love my neg scanner. Before I get jumped on, I do
agree that I can't get the same perfection of tone that I have managed
in my best efforts at wet printing. This is more than made up for with
the ease of set-up, experimentation, and the things I can do in
Photoshop that would take me forever by the old methods.

So are you saying that you are giving up on craftsmanship and quality for
convenience?

"jjs" wrote in message
...

"Paul Friday" wrote in message
...
Argue all you like about the relative merits of digital and film
cameras, but I dearly love my neg scanner. Before I get jumped on, I do
agree that I can't get the same perfection of tone that I have managed
in my best efforts at wet printing. This is more than made up for with
the ease of set-up, experimentation, and the things I can do in
Photoshop that would take me forever by the old methods.

So are you saying that you are giving up on craftsmanship and quality for
convenience?



That certainly begs the question.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Paul Friday said:

This is more than made up for with
the ease of set-up, experimentation, and the things I can do in
Photoshop that would take me forever by the old methods.
Rather than disappear into my cupboard all night, I can work in the
light and make no strange smells or stains. I can also work on a single
negative without all the fuss of making up and wasting a whole batch of
chemicals.

I think what you're referring to is the same thing that hit me a couple
nights ago when I went back into my wet darkroom to make some 8x10 contact
prints. It was the first time I've printed there in quite a while. I was
really struck by all the non-creative activity required and all the time it
took to do this work as opposed to the creative work involved in making the
best possible print..

I'd guess that maybe ten minutes out of every hour was spent on creative
activity - the rest was just a matter of performing drone work that any
idiot could have performed equally well plus letting time go by while doing
nothing creative. And my light source is an Aristo VCL 4500 head, which
eliminates the time and effort that otherwise would be involved in fiddling
around with filters. Not for nothing did so many of the prominent black and
white photographers employ darkroom assistants (or, in the case of the color
people, use a lab).

When this was the only way of working I just accepted it without giving it
any thought - it was what you did if you thought it was important to make
your own prints. But the contrast with the digital darkroom where the
available options are so much greater and where almost all the time is spent
on creative effort as opposed to drudge work, which in turn lcan lead better
prints, just made the wet darkroom seem like a very antiquated and limiting
way of working to me.

I do
agree that I can't get the same perfection of tone that I have managed
in my best efforts at wet printing.

I'm not sure why you think you can't get the same "perfection of tone" with
your digital prints as you could in a wet darkroom. (actually I'm not sure
what you mean by "perfection of tone"). If by "perfection of tone" you mean
tonal range, a couple years ago I measured the tonal range of some of my
digital black and white prints with a reflection densitometer and the
difference compared to my wet darkroom prints was so small as to be
insignificant. I'd guess that with the improvement in black inks that has
been made by MIS and others since then there's no difference at all today
but I don't know for sure. If you're speaking of color, or if you mean
something other than tonal range in black and white by "perfection of tone,"
then I don't know.

Ultimately it isn't just a question of an easier and faster way of working.
If I couldn't make better prints digitally than I can in a wet darkroom I
wouldn't bother. Digital certainly has its own frustrations and irritants
not to mention a much steeper learning curve. But the fact that virtually
all the time spent in the digital darkroom is spent on creative activity,
much of which couldn't be done as well or even at all in a wet darkroom, has
the potential for leading to better prints. Whether that potential is
realized depends I think, like everything else in photography, on the
dedication and talent of the person doing the printing. So much of the
information and emotion in messages posted here relate to arguments over
equipment that I sometimes think the far greater importance of dedication
and talent get lost.

"Paul Friday" wrote in message
...
Argue all you like about the relative merits of digital and film
cameras, but I dearly love my neg scanner. Before I get jumped on, I do
agree that I can't get the same perfection of tone that I have managed
in my best efforts at wet printing. This is more than made up for with
the ease of set-up, experimentation, and the things I can do in
Photoshop that would take me forever by the old methods.
Rather than disappear into my cupboard all night, I can work in the
light and make no strange smells or stains. I can also work on a single
negative without all the fuss of making up and wasting a whole batch of
chemicals.
Much better!
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday

A wonderful, well-written post!

I'm teetering between digital and film at the moment and your comments are well
appreciated.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure why you think you can't get the same "perfection of tone" with
your digital prints as you could in a wet darkroom. (actually I'm not sure
what you mean by "perfection of tone"). If by "perfection of tone" you mean
tonal range, a couple years ago I measured the tonal range of some of my
digital black and white prints with a reflection densitometer and the
difference compared to my wet darkroom prints was so small as to be
insignificant. I'd guess that with the improvement in black inks that has
been made by MIS and others since then there's no difference at all today
but I don't know for sure. If you're speaking of color, or if you mean
something other than tonal range in black and white by "perfection of tone,"
then I don't know.



Bob G

"Sandy" wrote in message
...
Paul Friday said:

This is more than made up for with
the ease of set-up, experimentation, and the things I can do in
Photoshop that would take me forever by the old methods.
Rather than disappear into my cupboard all night, I can work in the
light and make no strange smells or stains. I can also work on a single
negative without all the fuss of making up and wasting a whole batch of
chemicals.

I think what you're referring to is the same thing that hit me a couple
nights ago when I went back into my wet darkroom to make some 8x10
contact
prints. It was the first time I've printed there in quite a while. I was
really struck by all the non-creative activity required and all the time
it
took to do this work as opposed to the creative work involved in making
the
best possible print..

I'd guess that maybe ten minutes out of every hour was spent on creative
activity - the rest was just a matter of performing drone work that any
idiot could have performed equally well plus letting time go by while
doing
nothing creative. And my light source is an Aristo VCL 4500 head, which
eliminates the time and effort that otherwise would be involved in
fiddling
around with filters. Not for nothing did so many of the prominent black
and
white photographers employ darkroom assistants (or, in the case of the
color
people, use a lab).

When this was the only way of working I just accepted it without giving
it
any thought - it was what you did if you thought it was important to make
your own prints. But the contrast with the digital darkroom where the
available options are so much greater and where almost all the time is
spent
on creative effort as opposed to drudge work, which in turn lcan lead
better
prints, just made the wet darkroom seem like a very antiquated and
limiting
way of working to me.

I do
agree that I can't get the same perfection of tone that I have managed
in my best efforts at wet printing.

I'm not sure why you think you can't get the same "perfection of tone"
with
your digital prints as you could in a wet darkroom. (actually I'm not sure
what you mean by "perfection of tone"). If by "perfection of tone" you
mean
tonal range, a couple years ago I measured the tonal range of some of my
digital black and white prints with a reflection densitometer and the
difference compared to my wet darkroom prints was so small as to be
insignificant. I'd guess that with the improvement in black inks that has
been made by MIS and others since then there's no difference at all today
but I don't know for sure. If you're speaking of color, or if you mean
something other than tonal range in black and white by "perfection of
tone,"
then I don't know.

Ultimately it isn't just a question of an easier and faster way of
working.
If I couldn't make better prints digitally than I can in a wet darkroom I
wouldn't bother. Digital certainly has its own frustrations and irritants
not to mention a much steeper learning curve. But the fact that virtually
all the time spent in the digital darkroom is spent on creative activity,
much of which couldn't be done as well or even at all in a wet darkroom,
has
the potential for leading to better prints. Whether that potential is
realized depends I think, like everything else in photography, on the
dedication and talent of the person doing the printing. So much of the
information and emotion in messages posted here relate to arguments over
equipment that I sometimes think the far greater importance of dedication
and talent get lost.

I agree with much of what you've said, though I still enjoy my darkroom
work. I must point out, though, that this _is_ an equipment group, so
people here are supposed to engage over equipment. No need to be
disappointed on that count!

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

jjs wrote:


"Paul Friday" wrote in message
...
Argue all you like about the relative merits of digital and film
cameras, but I dearly love my neg scanner. Before I get jumped on, I do
agree that I can't get the same perfection of tone that I have managed
in my best efforts at wet printing. This is more than made up for with
the ease of set-up, experimentation, and the things I can do in
Photoshop that would take me forever by the old methods.

So are you saying that you are giving up on craftsmanship and quality for
convenience?


Isn't that true of everything today? Almost every field seems to be bowing
to convenience and speed over quality, even in people's hobbies!

--

Stacey

Sandy wrote:



(actually I'm not
sure what you mean by "perfection of tone").

And you probably never will..

--

Stacey

In article ,
"Sandy" wrote:

If by "perfection of tone" you mean
tonal range, a couple years ago I measured the tonal range of some of my
digital black and white prints with a reflection densitometer and the
difference compared to my wet darkroom prints was so small as to be
insignificant. I'd guess that with the improvement in black inks that has
been made by MIS and others since then there's no difference at all today
but I don't know for sure

Obviously you don't, I suggest you go to a museum or two and look (actually see
is a better word) some Westons and maybe some of Strands work. Then report back if
you see little difference. Maybe your B&W work doesn't show the difference but
mine of 22+++ years surely does. If your just measuring the black and whites and greys
then I would say,...yah there's little difference. B&W prints are about silver, and there's sparkle
in them good prints. Here's another experiment scan a traditional B&W negative
print it with your inks,.....then convert a color negative and print it,....I dare say
the silver should come through better than the converstion. Now take that silver negative
and complete the cycle,...make a silver FB print. That should produce some
enlightenment. I hope

In message , jjs
writes
So are you saying that you are giving up on craftsmanship and quality for
convenience?

Yes.
Or I could say that I would rather print something than nothing. At
least with the digital stuff I can spend a spare ten minutes working on
a negative. Setting up for a wet session was getting increasingly
infrequent.
I also find that all of the time I spend on digital work is productive -
I can experiment with contrast, curves and tones and see the result
immediately. Or I could sit in the dark rocking trays.
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday