Darkroom or Lightroom?

Thoughts appreciated folks..

I shoot 4x5 and scan negatives on an Epson 4990, then print to A3+ using an HP B9180.

However, the Epson needs replacing. The glass is now so fogged on the underside it is affecting the scans, and the motors in the unit seem to have given up. I am the worst DIY person going, so no way would I attempt to take it apart and try to clean it or repair it.

With my son leaving home soon, I would be in a position to either set up a
traditional darkroom with 4x5 enlarger, or should I just just get another scanner.

Then I am into the question of Microtek F1 or Epson V750? The Epson coverns me as the glass will no doubt fog over in time, and is the Microtek so much better for scanning 4x5 negs given that it is double the price of the Epson?

Is the very slightly higher Dmax of the Microtek going to give any real world advantages?

And my other question - would a traditional 4x5 wet silver print be better than a scanned 4x5 using my set up?

I'm not a pro, but like others I strive for better quality all the time, and would go the darkroom route if ultimate quality were better. Time to produce the end result is no problem.

Thoughts appreciated!

Steve

The quality from a darkroom print is far superior to an inkjet.
But its a lot more time consuming and requires more skill.
If you want the best quality you can get out of 4x5, enlarging and contact printing is the only way.

I used to use a dedicated film scanner and epson 7800 to print black and white, but the costs of running these machines is ridiculous and the results not particularly consistent despite what everyone says. After finally throwing in the towel at another set of cartridges (£300+) and the extortionate cost of 'Fiba' inkjet paper, I picked up a second hand enlarger kit for £99 and set up a temporary darkroom. I have never looked back. My 7800 is up for sale along with all my other digital stuff and I just invested in a Mamiya 7ii.

I have prints made from the inkjet side by side with glossy fiber prints of the same subject from the same negatives. There is no comparison to me. the fiber wet prints look better (and I am not particularly skilled in the darkroom). I also find it much more enjoyable to come out of the darkroom with a nice print than sitting on my arse in front of a computer monitor tweaking layers and curves for hours. You won't necessarily get incredible results straight away, but with time you might like it better. I also don't think it is actually much slower to print analogue than digitally.

butterfly said:

Thoughts appreciated folks..

Is the very slightly higher Dmax of the Microtek going to give any real world advantages?

Steve

Click to expand...

You may see slightly more shadow detail but your highlight detail will suffer due to a the limited contrast range with electronic imaging. If your looking for fine art quality, in the darkroom is the place to be. Hand made silver gels are hard to beat.

Paul

Thanks for the responses. I used to produce pretty good silver based prints from 35mm, and like many have become very disilusioned with digital. As you say, there is the exhorbitant cost of inks for my extremely problematic HP B9180 and hours spent in front of a computer is no way to spend a life.

Now, I have to look out for a 4x5 enlarger..

I think Steve got some sound advice. These are interesting posts.

The expense of running printers is not mentioned much except in forums. I understand that, should Steve wish to sell prints, the traditional silver print enjoys status in that direction. In the future do you wish to say that you ran Photoshop for 20 years or that you were a printmaker? I have chosen the latter.

I maintain a theory that the film and paper companies "know something" about the market direction for these products in the next 5 or 10 years, and that it is in better shape than we fear.

Incidentally, Microtek has no physical support of units in North America. I have repaired my own i900 instead of "sending it in."

Go with an enlarger. Much more enjoyable and you get the feeling of actually having made something yourself instead of just telling a computer to do it for you.

Incidentally, the dmax issue is much overplayed. Dmax 4.0 is over 13 stops. I can assure you that if you have a B+W neg that comes anywhere near 13 stops or density 4.0 then you are doing something seriously wrong. Infact I think it would have solarised long before it got that dense. Even a density of 2.0 is pushing it so any cheap scanner with minimal dmax is capable of getting the full range out of a B+W neg. Might not be sharp and it might show horrendous grain, but Dmax is not issue for B+W negs.
It is an issue for chromes which are very significantly more dense than B+W, maybe 3.0 +. (they were designed for projection onto big screens using very bright lights and not for printing).

I bought a 4x5 camera in 05, and scanned the negs for digital prints until last year when I purchased a second hand 4x5 enlarger (with a Crown Graphic thrown in - now my most frequently used camera.) Give me the darkroom any day. Images that had taken a ton of fiddling in photoshop are printing with a minimum of fuss and bother. (I'm still learning darkroom skills - but APUG members have been an immense help and inspiration.) I would much rather muck about in the darkroom that sit in front of the computer for hours.

butterfly said:

I strive for better quality all the time, and would go the darkroom route if ultimate quality were better.

Click to expand...

Did you think anyone on this forum would indicate the computer prints would be better

Seriously, comparing the two is a little difficult because one uses pigments and the other uses silver. They both can look good, so you will have to decide. I would certainly think the cost of a high quality computer print would be much, much higher (ie equipment costs) than traditional darkroom. I don't know which computer printer is best, but I do know that next year it will be a different printer . Darkroom equipment will maintain its value, especially if you get someone to give it to you for free! (these comments are assuming you are talking about doing B&W.)

What Ari said; I've yet to see an inkjet print that impresses me, especially in B&W. Metamerism is a little less worse than it used to be, but I'll take a selenium-toned fibre print any day when I want real blacks.

In colour, the only reason why I would use an inkjet is to create a really matt print, or use a particular paper. Matt RA4 paper remains slightly shiny, probably because of the gelatin emulsion. I gotta say that the matt B&W papers I've seen were much better in terms of not being glossy, I don't know why.

Dye transfer or tri-color carbon printing used to be among the few colour mediums that deposit dyes/pigments directly onto a paper surface (someone please correct me if I'm wrong here). Due to the cost, difficulty, and availability of these media, most people, like me, would only have access to an inkjet print for printing on custom paper.

Folks at hybridphoto.com would be glad to tell you more about their various choices. For my part, I am spending my colour efforts at printing C41 negs on RA4 paper, and I love it.

Well maybe *some* people may say they are better but wouldn't say so on this forum

Yes, I am going for a 4x5 enlarger. I can buy a Devere for the same cost as a scanner. I already have trays/timers etc.. Probably only need an easel.

Thanks for the comments everyone, as usual on APUG, really helpful and informative.

Steve

I'm surprised at your troubles with the 4990. I've had mine since shortly after they came out, it has received heavy use, and I have had no hint of the troubles you mention. I have used both Epson and Microtek scanners, and I think they both work fine - no preference. The B9180 is capable of producing a quite acceptable and very durable black and white print, but I still prefer darkroom prints. The downside is that the darkroom takes a lot more skill and a lot, lot more time, and you don't always have the amount it takes to do the job you want.

I got an Epson V700 and I'm satisfied with that for scanning my negs. I also got me an Epson 1400 for printing. While being able to print very nice A3+ colorprints from my wifes little compact digicam, the real trick is to get decent b/w prints out of Photoshop from my scanned negs, at least something close to what I get in an ordinary wet dark room. Ok, I know that there are better printers out there, but nothing very much better this side of $2000.
Also, I do photography to relax. So taking a few hours in the wet, the dark, the ... doesn't hurt me at all. If I also get some pictures with me that I like I'm very happy.
Once the investment for the darkroom gear is made (quite cheap these days), prints are rather cheap compared to digital printouts. (Given use of cheaper material like Adox papers. A bit more oldfashioned and it takes a bit more learning, but given the correct treatment it will reward you. E.g. Ilford is easier to use, but it's also in a different price league.)

//Björn

nworth said:

The downside is that the darkroom takes a lot more skill and a lot, lot more time, and you don't always have the amount it takes to do the job you want.

Click to expand...

Although I have a fully color managed, and properly setup, d*****l workflow next to my ready to use wet darkroom, I always find that the computer workflow takes *at least* the same amount of time it takes to make a good wet print in my darkroom... and is just far less fun!

The only gain is when you have fully corrected d*****l file and want to reprint it. Setting up the darkroom takes more time (but not that much), than switching on my computer and having the print roll out of the printer. But even that advantage is only minimal, with some printers requiring 10 minutes or so for a singly A3+ print at highest quality...

Anyway, if you do not often reprint an older negative a second time, analog is just as good as d*****l in terms of required time... disregarding all other aspects.

arigram said:

The quality from a darkroom print is far superior to an inkjet.
But its a lot more time consuming and requires more skill.
If you want the best quality you can get out of 4x5, enlarging and contact printing is the only way.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

Darkroom is a lot more fun too. I am not sure that traditional requires more skill. I think it does but the point is arguable. But I am sure that traditional requires different skills which are more interesting to me than learning another software program and I like the craft aspect of traditional photography as well.

I am amazed that this thread is still going, but since it is I would like to add my two cents.

I find both the darkroom and the lightroom very enjoyable , both requiring some of the same skills and also very different sets of skills.

I do not equate one to be more better than the other and most know here that I love to combine the lightroom with the darkroom , which is a fantastic overall experience.

Get a lithogram printing press.

Dear Steve,

Two suggestions: 1) Set up a 4x5 enlarger and darkroom. You will not regret it. 2) Check out this link for scanner comparisons http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

Neal Wydra

Watching a print slowly feed out of an inkjet vs. watching the dark tones suddenly come out in the developer.

Not even in the same league. I first saw the latter almost sixty years ago and the thrill of it is one reason I have started doing wet darkroom ago.

I'm not a purist; I love digital for what it can do well. "Slides" for free, easily manipulated. A marvel but one without the soul of a wet darkroom.

Apples and lichi nuts.