Digital Printing

[cliveh]

Digital printing is now so good that I think it surpasses what can be achieved in a darkroom. For that reason I intend to use the physical integrity of film, but scan and print through digital. Others may not agree, but I am a taker and have little interest in darkroom printing.

 

[Don_ih]

Have fun. It's not unusual to print digitally. It's what most people do - if they print at all.

 

[Pieter12]

Expect to put as much time and effort into a good digital print as you would a darkroom print. And spend more money, too, for black and white at least.

 

[GregY]

Digital printing is now so good that I think it surpasses what can be achieved in a darkroom. For that reason I intend to use the physical integrity of film, but scan and print through digital. Others may not agree, but I am a taker and have little interest in darkroom printing.

"Digital printing is now so good "..... the equipment makes very good prints possible. Good luck with getting there.
I print in a darkroom and always will. There is a master digital printer in Calgary, Royce Howland. He made some very nice b/w prints from Kodachrome scans for me. He prints for many exhibitions. Very large prints. I saw a stellar set of digital prints he made to match a set of large silver gelatin prints. Stunning. His equipment setup and office are in the cost range of what someone would pay for a house. I suspect the 10k hours rule applied.

 

[koraks]

Digital printing is now so good that I think it surpasses what can be achieved in a darkroom.

For color, there's no contest here. It's a fact. There are some niches with very specific criteria where some kinds of darkroom prints (although not really RA4 chromogenic) can be argued to be 'better' - but that would be optimizing for very specific factors. Overall, pigment inkjet is just (technically, objectively) better than what we have in the wet domain.

For B&W, I think it's a little more nuanced; yes, inkjet can live up mostly to what is possible in the darkroom, but it's a different set of performance characteristics and the bottom line is that there's something to be said for either approach.

Of course, it's hard to beat the convenience of inkjet and the fact you can enjoy the winter sun beaming through the windows as you sit down in a comfy chair while the printer does its thing.

I do agree with this sentiment:

Expect to put as much time and effort into a good digital print as you would a darkroom print.

This is especially true for B&W. Color is easier IMO. Good monochrome on inkjet is really, really challenging.

 

[nikos79]

Good monochrome on inkjet is really, really challenging.

Why is that? I also noticed when printing my digital black and white photos in shops I am getting very suboptimal results

 

[Don_ih]

I can't get a scan from my scanner (v600) that matches an enlargement. It's close but the scan is fuzzier. But I do use scans to make calendars every year to give to my kids. I can certainly make an enlargement faster than get an inkjet print, though. And even at Ilford's retail prices, an 8x10 doesn't cost $5 (I just checked the price at the last photo printing place I used).

 

[Chan Tran]

Sure but then why use film at all?

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Sure but then why use film at all?

Saves you from having to use a computer with a lens on it take pictures.

 

[Don_ih]

Lots of people use film and never enlarge anything. They do it because they want to.

 

[Chan Tran]

Saves you from having to use a computer with a lens on it take pictures.

Saves you from having to use a computer with a lens on it take pictures.

But you ended up using a computer with a lens or a computer with a point array to digitize the film image then print it with a computer sending data yet to another computer sparying ink on paper. If you use film use all analog process otherwise why bother????

 

[koraks]

Why is that? I also noticed when printing my digital black and white photos in shops I am getting very suboptimal results

That's a good question; I think many factors go in there. I think ultimately it has something (or even a lot) to do with what we're used to in terms of darkroom prints. Since B&W has been practiced so much more and with so much finesse (just look at the no. of threads here on B&W vs. color printing), I think we collectively raised the bar pretty high. There's undoubtedly other factors at work, too. I'll think about it and maybe come back to it later. As said, interesting question.

 

[cliveh]

But you ended up using a computer with a lens or a computer with a point array to digitize the film image then print it with a computer sending data yet to another computer sparying ink on paper. If you use film use all analog process otherwise why bother????

But the original scene was CAPTURED (NOT MADE) using the physical integrity of film.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

But you ended up using a computer with a lens or a computer with a point array to digitize the film image then print it with a computer sending data yet to another computer sparying ink on paper. If you use film use all analog process otherwise why bother????

That's a fair point, and I'm not saying you're wrong. My answer is that I simply enjoy using film cameras, and I do not enjoy using digital cameras.

 

[wiltw]

Why is that? I also noticed when printing my digital black and white photos in shops I am getting very suboptimal results

Part of it is the need in finding inks with true neutrality of grays and blacks.

 

[GregY]

But the original scene was CAPTURED (NOT MADE) using the physical integrity of film.

....Clive you're off to a good start..capture is already the common adjective for digital photography......
talk about mixed metaphors. Good luck w your project.

 

[MattKing]

My take is that @cliveh is less influenced by the role that the darkroom printing plays in his image "capture" part of the process than I am.
For that reason, the advantages flowing from darkroom printing that I enjoy are not as important to him as they are to me.
The same used to apply to those who preferred transparencies to negative film.
So he should use the method that suits him - as long as he understands that the preference isn't necessarily shared by everyone.

 

[koraks]

Part of it is the need in finding inks with true neutrality of grays and blacks.

Well, I'd say "desirable hue" instead of 'neutrality'. Silver gel paper is often not really neutral, and vice versa, my inkjet prints are not necessarily less neutral unless I deliberately add toning. Yet, how the hues shift as we travel through the tonal scale is definitely a factor that allows for enormous variation. In addition, given that perfectly dead-neutral grey probably doesn't exist in either domain, the question remains which inks produce hues that are desirable, and/or can be used to mix desirable hues.

Then there's media type; of course there's baryta paper for inkjet, but I think anyone who has used it as well as darkroom FB/baryta paper knows that there are subtle or sometimes quite dramatic differences. Yes, inkjet baryta undoubtedly shows similarity to FB silver gel papers, but it's really not quite the same. And there are indeed differences between them. Coincidentally, this makes inkjet baryta printing fairly costly since these papers for the most part do not come cheap. Moreover, in the testing I've done, the differences between inkjet RC papers are very slim (other than paper weight/thickness), so I found relatively little advantage to very expensive inkjet RC papers. On the other hand, the more expensive baryta inkjet papers really are significantly nicer (and thus, different) from the lower-end ones. But the price differences is also dramatic!

These are just the material choices; the question of how to go from a monochrome digital image to a tangible inkjet print and all the tonal corrections and toning options involved - I think that's where the real challenge is. And it's every bit as big a challenge as managing these aspects in the darkroom, IMO.

 

[Pieter12]

The best black and white inkjet prints I have seen or have had made from my files have been printed by printers with a lot of experience and expertise, with high-end inkjet printers using multiple shades of black ink. And they cost about the same a a high-end darkroom print from a custom printer.

 

[cliveh]

My take is that @cliveh is less influenced by the role that the darkroom printing plays in his image "capture" part of the process than I am.
For that reason, the advantages flowing from darkroom printing that I enjoy are not as important to him as they are to me.
The same used to apply to those who preferred transparencies to negative film.
So he should use the method that suits him - as long as he understands that the preference isn't necessarily shared by everyone.

Of course I understand that. And perhaps there should be a forum for takers who are not makers.

 

[GregY]

Of course I understand that. And perhaps there should be a forum for takers who are not makers.

Clive, as one who continues to have/use a darkroom....I'd put money that we are by far in the minority, and i'd suspect like the cell phone photographers, the majority of digital photographers....don't print. Look at wedding photographers as a sample....1000s of 'captures'.....lots of editing and then a digital handover to the clients.

 

[koraks]

And perhaps there should be a forum for takers who are not makers.

I don't understand that sentiment. Why'd you want to segregate yourself?
There are photographers who don't print.
There are photographers who also print.
There are printers who do not photograph.
There are tinkerers who work on cameras etc and who neither photograph or print.
All are welcome here. There's something to be enjoyed for all of these groups, and more, on this forum.

 

[Pieter12]

Of course I understand that. And perhaps there should be a forum for takers who are not makers.

For me, making a print is the culmination of the photographic process. I need to print to continue to refine my image to my satisfaction. And to fill the trash bin when necessary.

 

[Don_ih]

@cliveh , I don't but the whole "taker not maker" thing, anyway. Are you going to say you have no input other than pointing the camera? You don't use a point-and-shoot. You focus, set exposure, develop the film yourself. All of that contributes to what the photo ends up being. Your decision to take the photo of that particular scene is what makes a photo in the first place. Or do you act like a surveillance camera, just photographing whatever passes in front of you?

 

[cliveh]

Clive, as one who continues to have/use a darkroom....I'd put money that we are by far in the minority, and i'd suspect like the cell phone photographers, the majority of digital photographers....don't print. Look at wedding photographers as a sample....1000s of 'captures'.....lots of editing and then a digital handover to the clients.

The 1000s of captures is pray and spray and the editing is making. Sounds to me like the opposite of zen art.