Digital black and white photographs

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've been photographing since the days of film. I started with black and while and printed for many decades in the darkroom making silver gelatin prints. I've see many photographers work shot with film and digitally printed and enjoyed the work. As for me, I've tried to make black and white prints digitally. At best, I feel ambivalent about the prints. I feel the prints lack something I couldn't put my fingers on other than it feels soulless. I made some darkroom prints so I could enter a show last week and I get greater satisfaction looking a my curly dried fiber base prints than seeing a black and white print coming out of my ink jet printer. I have seen some very well done black and white prints but for my work, it doesn't seem the same as a hand made silver gelatin print. One issue I find annoying is though my printer is calibrated, my black and white prints always have a tint that just doesn't look like a selenium toned silver gelatin print. Is it just me?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I make digital negatives from film, and sometimes from my dslr to make carbon prints, etc. I find the stress levels in the traditional darkroom much lower than in the lightroom. For example, I spent an hour trying to unclog nozzles, before I could print out the separation negatives required for a tri-colour gum. At times like those, I say to myself bugger it, I'm going back to the darkroom and silver gelatin VC papers!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Ahhh...will the debate ever end?

No.

You'll never know unless you have made the absolute best digital prints possible. Have you done that? Have you exhausted every possible way to squeeze out whatever qualities you want/need? If you haven't, then you'll never know.

I did that with silver gelatin prints, by using sharp and unsharp pin registered masking techniques for enlarging my 4x5 negatives to a maximum size of 11x14 and by using a glycin/metol developer which when toned in selenium gave, to my eye, an absolutely gorgeous print colour. They were the very best I could do with near absolute control over local contrast in different areas of the print and almost grain for grain dodging, such as bringing out detail in shadowed moss hanging from branches in a tree against a bright sky without effecting the sky at all.

They left me cold. Like looking through a window to the subject beyond...removed...distant from me.

I'm going to start alternative process printing. Have a feeling my prints will attain an 'art object in the hand' experience rather than what I got from silver gelatin prints. Won't know until I give it my best shot. Expect some detail will be lost, but that's what allows the magic to emerge. Will use scans of 4x5's but will also use digital camera work and expect it to be just fine, especially if I'm not going over 11x14.

A great many photographers use digitally enlarged negatives and are happy with the quality.

On a related note, I read a comment years ago about how a person saw some pin registered masked prints and they were awful, so there was no way he'd ever try it. Well, we've all seen poor dodging and burning but that's no reason to not do it! Maybe you haven't tried hard enough simply because your heart is in the darkroom.

 

[Don_ih]

Apart from finding some inkjet black ink looks purple, I think you can get excellent inkjet prints - even from a relatively cheap think like an Epson Artisan printer (or whatever they call it). I did, however, have to throw mine away because I had third-party ink cartridges in it and Epson released a firmware update that actually bricked the machine because of it. I even swapped out the fakes with genuine Epson gold-dust-cartridges (they must contain that for the price) - nope. Would not print. (Am I bitter about that? Probably.)
https://www.zdnet.com/article/epson-reported-to-texas-ag-for-bricking-third-party-ink-cartridges/

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Ahhh..will the debate ever end?

No.

You'll never know unless you have made the absolute best digital prints possible. Have you done that? Have you exhausted every possible way to squeeze out whatever qualities you want/need? If you haven't, then you'll never know.

I did that with silver gelatin prints, by using sharp and unsharp pin registered masking techniques for enlarging my 4x5 negatives to a maximum size of 11x14 and by using a glycin/metol developer which when toned in selenium gave, to my eye, an absolutely gorgeous print colour. They were the very best I could do with near absolute control over local contrast in different areas of the print and almost grain for grain dodging, such as bringing out detail in shadowed moss hanging from branches in a tree against a bright sky without effecting the sky at all.

They left me cold. Like looking through a window to the subject beyond...removed...distant from me.

I'm going to start alternative process printing. Have a feeling my prints will attain an 'art object in the hand' experience rather than what I got from silver gelatin prints. Won't know until I give it my best shot. Expect some detail will be lost, but that's what allows the magic to emerge. Will use scans of 4x5's but will also use digital camera work and expect it to be just fine, especially if I'm not going over 11x14.

A great many photographers use digitally enlarged negatives and are happy with the quality.

On a related note, I read a comment years ago about how a person saw some pin registered masked prints and they were awful, so there was no way he'd ever try it. Well, we've all seen poor dodging and burning but that's no reason to not do it! Maybe you haven't tried hard enough simply because your heart is in the darkroom.

I don't want to speak in absolute terms but just speak for myself. I probably haven't made the best digital print possible because I just don't have the skills and probably not the equipment. From my original post, I did see some excellent digital prints in a show about Japanese internment camps.

I'm a Mac user with a Canon Pro-100 printer and a ColorMuki calibrator and I still don't have what it takes to make a print that makes me happy. I've been a Mac user for decades and went through many iterations of computer gear for my photography and it's very expensive. I have made my attempts to make decent digital prints. On the other hand, I'm shooting with 30+ year old film gear and my darkroom gear is just as old. My my old time skills, I'm able to add new skills on top of my old skills. Digital photography is less so. It's constant churning of gear and skills that were useful are made obsolete with new technology or an upgrade. I think digital does have it's advantages. But I'm not willing to constantly upgrade gear and learn new software. I just want to make great printed pictures, not just constantly upgrading gear and skills. For some, it's worthwhile. Not so much for me.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I make digital negatives from film, and sometimes from my dslr to make carbon prints, etc. I find the stress levels in the traditional darkroom much lower than in the lightroom. For example, I spent an hour trying to unclog nozzles, before I could print out the separation negatives required for a tri-colour gum. At times like those, I say to myself bugger it, I'm going back to the darkroom and silver gelatin VC papers!

We're cut from the same bolt!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

We're cut from the same bolt!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I hear you on the churning, continual, chum bucket feeding frenzy aspect of digital.

We have Mac as well, and an Epson P600. Just received Ron Reeder's new book on digital negatives and a salt printing book is on its way. I don't need/want the best/newest, so intend to understand the power and nuances of what I equipment I have before running to jump on any bandwagons.

If I create a print which goes beyond making the hair on my arms stand up and provokes a tear from my eye, I'll know I've made it. Don't really care how I get there!

 

[fgorga]

Well... I think that the most appropriate response to the OP is "to each their own" and "there is no right way to make art nor is there a wrong way".

I made my first photographs in 1970... 51 years ago. Tri-X, etc. all the way. I did this for many years. I am certainly of the school that one has not finished a photograph until it is printed (and matted/mounted).

I still expose 4x5 film on rare occasions but most of my exposures these days are made with a digital camera. The absence of significant cost in making digital exposures is, to me, incredibly freeing. I take many more photographic "risks" with digital than I ever did with film. This ability to experiment has made my photographs stronger.

My inkjet prints are better than anything I ever made in the darkroom. I use the Piezography Pro system these days for my monochrome work (and standard Epson inks for color work). The learning curve was steep but the view from the top was worth the effort. Never having to spot another print is an added benefit!

However, for the last year and a bit the large majority of my prints have been made in the dim room using digital negatives... mainly cyanotypes and salted-paper prints. (I am just beginning to learn platinum printing.) There is definitely something satisfying about make a print via manual labor.

My practice will, I'm sure, continue to evolve as it has for the past fifty years. Will I ever return to making silver gelatin prints? I have learned to never say "never", but I highly doubt it.

The key to me is to keep experimenting. Adopt what works to realize your vison, discard what doesn't and continue to try more new things.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Well... I think that the most appropriate response to the OP is "to each their own" and "there is no right way to make art nor is there a wrong way".

I made my first photographs in 1970... 51 years ago. Tri-X, etc. all the way. I did this for many years. I am certainly of the school that one has not finished a photograph until it is printed (and matted/mounted).

I still expose 4x5 film on rare occasions but most of my exposures these days are made with a digital camera. The absence of significant cost in making digital exposures is, to me, incredibly freeing. I take many more photographic "risks" with digital than I ever did with film. This ability to experiment has made my photographs stronger.

My inkjet prints are better than anything I ever made in the darkroom. I use the Piezography Pro system these days for my monochrome work (and standard Epson inks for color work). The learning curve was steep but the view from the top was worth the effort. Never having to spot another print is an added benefit!

However, for the last year and a bit the large majority of my prints have been made in the dim room using digital negatives... mainly cyanotypes and salted-paper prints. (I am just beginning to learn platinum printing.) There is definitely something satisfying about make a print via manual labor.

My practice will, I'm sure, continue to evolve as it has for the past fifty years. Will I ever return to making silver gelatin prints? I have learned to never say "never", but I highly doubt it.

The key to me is to keep experimenting. Adopt what works to realize your vison, discard what doesn't and continue to try more new things.

I make digital negatives too. They're amazing. I think ink jet printers and digital negatives have sparked a renaissance of alternative processes. Before then, people had to make enlarged negatives and I find that very intimidating. I've made some pretty decent Ziatypes and cyanotypes with digital negatives. I'm a big fan of Peter Mrhar. I also believe in experimenting to expand my art/hobby. After all, I did experiment with ink jet printing.

 

[Alan9940]

I make digital negatives for pt/pd printing mainly because I like the control available to me on the desktop and that I can create a print from any camera or digital device that I own. I've printed B&W silver gelatin in the darkroom for 40+ years and have a pretty nice portfolio of about two dozen prints. I've printed B&W digital for about 20 years, but have only a couple of prints that I truly enjoy. Maybe I worked harder on the analog side when I was younger and have grown lazy on the digital side in my advancing years? Dunno. I still do enjoy a finely crafted B&W silver print!

Funny, though...I own a digital print made by a recognized (at the time) photographer that was shot on Tech Pan with a Hasselblad, scanned and printed with an Epson 1270 printer (consumer level dye ink) on what at the time was probably the cheapest Epson glossy paper available. I keep it in a sealed envelope in the dark and, to this day, it remains one of my favorite prints that I own. Go figure! So I guess there is some "magic pixie dust" available to a few that allows the crafting of lovely B&W digital prints.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

So I guess there is some "magic pixie dust" available to a few that allows the crafting of lovely B&W digital prints.

I'm still looking for some. It should have save me from the frustration calibration headaches.

 

[jvo]

Try Piezography. Top of the line. But you don’t need to go that far.

The best inkjet prints I’ve seen recently (by people who are excellent at it) are as good or better than anything that can be done in the darkroom, not to mention virtually limitless flexibility. And I say that as a darkroom worker who is as obsessive about print quality as it gets. No shit. Which is why I’ve decided to start learning the digital side so that I can combine the two.

I've had to reluctantly give up my darkroom to return it to a bedroom for my adopted grandkids... I therefore bought a digital camera and do all my work in lightroom now. Previously, I always look at the digital print and found it in some indefinable way - deficient.

Since I've had no other choice, I've learned the wonder of the digital print, it's capabilities, and am proud of what I produce - just as in the darkroom. I don't have a printer and send all my digital files out - no printer, calibration, etc - a headache. Have I been hoodwinked and seduced to the darkside? Maybe. I'm artistically productive more than ever before, and happy.

I hope film only increases in production and demand - may it never end. (I'd like to think, I'll get back there. I still lurk on the analog side to vicariously get my thrills)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Of course here is huge difference between darkroom print from the negative and digital file. It is dead, biologically degraded and already in the form of the dust dead horse. Digital bw vs analog in 2021 is not really any different. Leica Monochrome sensors still can't produce what Kentmere 400 on Kentmere RC paper do.

Knowing this fact, these days, I just can't force myself to use film. I went from do it all stage, to I just hate it all. I hate film. Total waste of time and money. IMO.

With minimal tryouts it is not a big deal to get digital file as bw and totally not big deal to print it as true bw. My inkjet printer has check box for it. Called as "greyscale" or something. It is switching inks mix to bw only. Zero color cast.

And results are just fine.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Of course here is huge difference between darkroom print from the negative and digital file. It is dead, biologically degraded and already in the form of the dust dead horse. Digital bw vs analog in 2021 is not really any different. Leica Monochrome sensors still can't produce what Kentmere 400 on Kentmere RC paper do.

Knowing this fact, these days, I just can't force myself to use film. I went from do it all stage, to I just hate it all. I hate film. Total waste of time and money. IMO.

With minimal tryouts it is not a big deal to get digital file as bw and totally not big deal to print it as true bw. My inkjet printer has check box for it. Called as "greyscale" or something. It is switching inks mix to bw only. Zero color cast.

And results are just fine.

Glad to see what you're doing works for you. Photographers should be discriminating about their prints. For most people, making their own darkroom prints is not feasible. Printers take up a lot less space and use a lot less water. I'm still going to try to get a decent BW print from my Canon Pro 100. I've got some work ahead.

 

[jeffreyg]

For what it's worth... I use both film and digital. My film equipment is almost thirty years old as well. My digital cameras are about six or seven years old. I guess I'm considered old too. I use medium format, 4x5, 4x5 pinhole, dslr and point and shoot digital. I scan film, enlarge film on both x-ray duplicating film and digital transparent film. I print silver-gelatin,platinum/palladium and digital with an Epson 3880. What paper do you use? What software do you edit with? I keep it as simple as possible and basically use PhotoShop mainly as a digital darkroom ( contrast, burning and dodging). I haven't calibrated my printer or monitor. What I have done through some trial and error is to change my RGB scans to gray scale then doutone and came up with a combination that a 60% fill over the gray scale gives me the tonal qualities I like. I then revert it back to RGB before printing.. On cotton paper both Hahnemuhle and Moab, I get what could pass for a darkroom print . I represent my prints for what they are and the technique that was used. Last year I had some printed to 5ft and one to 6ft for an exhibition.

My guess is that if you play around a bit you can come up with a process that will please you.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[gone]

I think you've run into the old "horses for courses" analogy. If you want the prints to look like they're toned and printed on an enlarger, you'll have to work in a darkroom. An inkjet won't do it. I just turned my kitchen into a de facto darkroom, which works great because it has a door to the bathroom to wash the prints.

I actually have the opposite problem that you're having. Years ago I used to shoot film, scan it, and print it using only the black ink cartridge. Black only prints. These were made on beautifully textured Epson papers (and the texture went totally away if you put it behind glass or plexi). The prints look more like etchings, not photographs. I'd love to duplicate the BO look w/ analog printing, but it won't work because it's comparing black ink to blackened silver in an emulsion

 

[Bill Burk]

Ink is so expensive

 

[MurrayMinchin]

When I started, 100 sheets of 4x5 B&W film was about $50.00...everything is expensive!

 

[foc]

Would this be of any help with calibrating your monitor and printer?

https://www.harmanlab.com/images/harmanlabmon.jpg

I have used it myself and found it very handy.

See this part:
Monitor Calibration Print

We can supply a test print if you wish to check that your monitor matches the output from our printer and we only charge for postage if you need one.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

The canon pro-100 is a great color printer that uses 3 shades of gray inks so you should be able to make a decent black and white print. You won’t be able to use QTR as it only works with Epson printers so you won’t be able to convert it to Piezography. Piezography is truly phenomenal and I wouldn’t go back to wet prints unless I was using a digital negative. Have you tried different papers with the canon ?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

The canon pro-100 is a great color printer that uses 3 shades of gray inks so you should be able to make a decent black and white print. You won’t be able to use QTR as it only works with Epson printers so you won’t be able to convert it to Piezography. Piezography is truly phenomenal and I wouldn’t go back to wet prints unless I was using a digital negative. Have you tried different papers with the canon ?

I do agree it's a very good printer. I have tried different papers. But it's black and white that is the tough nut to crack. I get various shades of gray varying from neutral to warm. With silver gelatin printing, tones more consistent. Even between brands. I've even used my ColorMunki with I1 software to create a black and white profile. The profile is warmish. I do get beautiful color prints with it Canon Pro 100. I also use it for digital negs with varying success. Because the printer uses dye based inks that doesn't block UV light completely, I never get a true white with salted gelatin prints and Ziatypes. I think pigmented inks are better suited for digital negs. However, there was a fellow on a Facebook group that had very nice whites on his palladium prints. I had Epson printers and they make beautiful prints also. My issue is that the heads tend go clog if I don't use them regularly. So far, my dye based Canon Pro 100 hasn't clogged at all. I don't use the printer regularly. I tend to print in spurts. They're such good printers, that I got another one on a lark because Canon through B&H was clearing them out. My original one I've had for 5 years and it's worked flawlessly if it's calibrated.