Digital Printing

[GregY]

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

another one of reasons why i have stayed with film & i must say my best education was spending more than a decade primarily using large format cameras..... coming back to roll film my itchy trigger finger cured.....

 

[djdister]

Years ago when I got an Epson 3880 I made a digital print from a scan of a favorite 4x5 B&W negative I had previously printed in a darkroom. The digital B&W print was so sharp and had so much more detail in the shadows that I pulled the darkroom print out of the frame and have kept the digital print on the wall for years now. Maybe my black and white printing skills weren't as good as they could be, but a high quality digital printer helped me make so many more quality prints from years of negatives than I ever could have made by thousands of hours in the darkroom. It's been very freeing...

 

[koraks]

{Other Moderator's addition:
@koraks post below reflects a concern shared by many of us respecting a number of responses in this thread.}

It saddens me that there's apparently still people who believe we need to draw crude divisions in the community based on choice of technology. What a silly position to take. And what little justice does it do to the choices others make. There can't be much honor or satisfaction in that. A bleak outlook, for sure.

 

[fgorga]

It saddens me that there's apparently still people who believe we need to draw crude divisions in the community based on choice of technology. What a silly position to take. And what little justice does it do to the choices others make. There can't be much honor or satisfaction in that. A bleak outlook, for sure.

Here... here. I fully agree.

The discussion sounds an awful lot like the pictorial vs. straight photography arguments of a century ago.

It's a big world. Chose your own path and don't make prescriptions for others. There is plenty of room for everyone.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

Are you conversant with digital photography (capture), or analogue only?

If you are pursuing the DIY route, then you are looking at a learning curve that could well take 5-6 years of persistent trial and error (and not inconsiderable cost!), quite apart from learning the basics of colour or monochrome printing e.g. up to speed with advanced scanning skills; profiling (screen/print-media); calibration and colourimetrics (colour matching)... the list goes on so long that unrestrained, I could fill 2-3 A4 pages! Don't expect a computer in auto to deliver the results that will light your fire. The 'maker' has complete, overriding control with little interest in automation or short-cuts.

Individual experiences vary. I finished darkroom printing in 1998 (my own initially, then a community darkroom) and have no regrets about the departure from such filthy, stinking, stuffy and dark dens (it certainly did not help my asthma!). Digital cameras were very soon to barnstorm onto the scene, bamboozling an impressionable yet very unskilled public into the bargain, and inkjet printers — frowned upon by uber-traditional practitioners of the craft, went from simply mediocre to, well, bloody marvellous in just a few short years. Darkrooms went from hundreds (private) in the large town where I lived, to just handful (and none are known to this day). As an Ilfochrome Classic printer, the impact of the march of digital photography and printing (aka, full digital workflow) had a very negative affect on the long-standing appreciation of the traditional means of crafting a print (psst — the domain of the 'maker'!) — this high cost, Disneychromed glossy stuff was soon scorned on as backward, romantic crap — certainly, it wasn't seen as art, and nowhere near as cheap, fast and efficient in the public eye as digital.

I think I was lucky to scrape through considering how costly the training was (travel, meals, petrol etc.). I began my scan-to-print skills in the winter of 1993, travelling 320km (return!) to night school, using the earliest version of Photoshop (and PageMaker, then Quark XPress). The training was 12 months; on-job training was another two years and then I returned to darkroom printing as an Ilfochrome Classic printer (also printing digitally to that media from 2004). Digital printing wasn't so much a thing then, but it definitely was making inroads against a growing discord from traditionalists

I do not know what the situation is regarding formal courses or avenues of learning in England, but in Australia, courses do still exist as part of a broader curriculum in commercial art production (e.g. with advertising agencies who sponsor their own training), also dedicated photography studies organisations, although film and scanning has little prominence today to what it once did — most I know of are geared toward full digital production. Are there adult education organisations in the UK that offer courses to introduce one to digital printing?

You need to kit up and put the head down into learning, long-term. None of this 'taker not maker' stuff. You do both, or you do not do it at all.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

It saddens me that there's apparently still people who believe we need to draw crude divisions in the community based on choice of technology. What a silly position to take. And what little justice does it do to the choices others make. There can't be much honor or satisfaction in that. A bleak outlook, for sure.

Oh yes, do tell!

There are traditionalists here in Australia who pour scorn on how others involved in the photography craft produce things (prints). I experience it often.

But frankly my dear, I couldn't give a damn.

 

[Chan Tran]

{Other Moderator's addition:
@koraks post below reflects a concern shared by many of us respecting a number of responses in this thread.}

It saddens me that there's apparently still people who believe we need to draw crude divisions in the community based on choice of technology. What a silly position to take. And what little justice does it do to the choices others make. There can't be much honor or satisfaction in that. A bleak outlook, for sure.

This was the intent of the admin (website owner) I think because for a time Sean prohibit talks about digital at all when it was apug. Now he had 3 sections for analog, digital and hybrid.

 

[koraks]

This was the intent of the admin (website owner) I think

I severely doubt this was ever the case in the past, and in recent years (since the Photrio merge) this has 100% not been the case. The existence of the A/H/D tags should NOT be misunderstood as an intent on @Sean's behalf (or any of the moderators) to draw such lines through the community. These distinctions ONLY exist because a select few members couldn't cope if we were to get rid of them. If someone mistakenly mis-tags something, we still from time to time get angry reports of disgruntled people because they happened upon something digital while they are bent on only being shown analog content (it's never the other way around). This is the only reason we still have these tags.

 

[albireo]

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.

I am a film/hybrid photographer (I develop my negatives with the end goal of scanning them) and I have recently decided to experiment with printing some of my negatives.

I do not have a strong interest, or time, or space, for setting up a darkroom and wet printing my negatives for the time being (though I can easily see myself being drawn to this when I have more time, e.g. when/if I retire) and I have found a satisfactory way forward by having my negatives printed by a specialised company via a laser process on real Ilford baryta paper.

My thread and impressions here

Whitewall Ilford Baryta prints from digital files?

The quality of the prints (not of my photos, of course) is exhibition-grade. Might be something worth considering for you, too.

 

[Chan Tran]

I severely doubt this was ever the case in the past, and in recent years (since the Photrio merge) this has 100% not been the case. The existence of the A/H/D tags should NOT be misunderstood as an intent on @Sean's behalf (or any of the moderators) to draw such lines through the community. These distinctions ONLY exist because a select few members couldn't cope if we were to get rid of them. If someone mistakenly mis-tags something, we still from time to time get angry reports of disgruntled people because they happened upon something digital while they are bent on only being shown analog content (it's never the other way around). This is the only reason we still have these tags.

Back in the day when it was apug if you post a post involved digital it would be deleted. It's a pity because the apug community had more knowledge about what I wanted to ask than other forum. Back in the days when I still had my darkroom I want to discuss using scanner as color analyzer. The printing is still RA-4 the scanner is used only to determine the filter settings and exposure. So the APUG community would have much better knowledge than people in other forum yet because it involved scanning it was prohibited.

 

[albireo]

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????

There are many well established reasons to use a partially analogue process, and you probably know this and just want to bicker, but I'll bite anyway and pick one reason.

If you don't understand that the ergonomics of e.g. a Rolleiflex TLR is completely different from the ergonomics of a Nikon D850, and that for some of us camera ergonomics, and what a camera can or cannot do, directly influences the picture we will or will not take - more than whether the picture is enjoyed on a screen rather than printed on a piece of paper - then you have understood nothing about photography.

 

[MattKing]

Back in the day when it was apug if you post a post involved digital it would be deleted. It's a pity because the apug community had more knowledge about what I wanted to ask than other forum. Back in the days when I still had my darkroom I want to discuss using scanner as color analyzer. The printing is still RA-4 the scanner is used only to determine the filter settings and exposure. So the APUG community would have much better knowledge than people in other forum yet because it involved scanning it was prohibited.

The name - Analog Photography Users Group - explains where it started from.
At the time, the site was apparently intended to be an oasis in a desert - a world that seemed hell bent to replace film and darkroom ASAP.
Manufacturers like Kodak and Ilford were going under, sites that were focused almost exclusively on digital photography were popular and successful, and there was a feeling that if people didn't protect what they valued, it would disappear.
I only found APUG - more than 20 years ago - because of a reference on one of those digital photography sites.

It was intended to be exclusive because at the time it was thought that that was necessary for survival.

It wasn't until things settled down a bit - Harman resurrected Ilford, Kodak survived bankruptcy, and many other signs of continuing viability emerged. It was at that time that APUG and its sister sites began to evolve toward more inclusivity. Photrio is the result of that.

 

[djdister]

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????

Okay, I'll give you 10 reasons why I "bother" to shoot film, scan and print digitally using a high quality photo printer:

1. I like the perspective, focus, etc, controls that my film cameras offer (120, 4x5, 5x7) when shooting
2. I like the feel and focus that comes with shooting film
3. I can easily process B&W film at home with minimal equipment, setup and hassle
4. Scanning film gives me yet more control to create a high quality digital image file
5. Editing a digital image file (whether a scan or a digital capture) gives me a high degree of control over the final presentation
6. Printing a digital image file provides me with many presentation options
7. No need to procure, operate, maintain equipment and chemistry that would be necessary for a wet darkroom for large prints (16x20+)
8. Immediate printing - no need to mix chemistry, setup, wash and dry trays, clean the sink, and put things away after a printing session
9. Minute changes can be made in my digital image file and it can be quickly reprinted with highly repeatable results
10. When people see my digital prints (B&W or color) on high quality photo paper, no one has ever asked me "how did you print this?'

 

[cliveh]

Okay, I'll give you 10 reasons why I "bother" to shoot film, scan and print digitally using a high quality photo printer:

1. I like the perspective, focus, etc, controls that my film cameras offer (120, 4x5, 5x7) when shooting
2. I like the feel and focus that comes with shooting film
3. I can easily process B&W film at home with minimal equipment, setup and hassle
4. Scanning film gives me yet more control to create a high quality digital image file
5. Editing a digital image file (whether a scan or a digital capture) gives me a high degree of control over the final presentation
6. Printing a digital image file provides me with many presentation options
7. No need to procure, operate, maintain equipment and chemistry that would be necessary for a wet darkroom for large prints (16x20+)
8. Immediate printing - no need to mix chemistry, setup, wash and dry trays, clean the sink, and put things away after a printing session
9. Minute changes can be made in my digital image file and it can be quickly reprinted with highly repeatable results
10. When people see my digital prints (B&W or color) on high quality photo paper, no one has ever asked me "how did you print this?'

Amen + archival permanence is now very good when using the right papers.

 

[GregY]

Amen + archival permanence is now very good when using the right papers.

Clive...hold on to your pocketbook.... this is just one part of Royce Howland's studio in Calgary (shown here working on images for Steve Speer's current project.

 

[Pieter12]

Okay, I'll give you 10 reasons why I "bother" to shoot film, scan and print digitally using a high quality photo printer:

1. I like the perspective, focus, etc, controls that my film cameras offer (120, 4x5, 5x7) when shooting
2. I like the feel and focus that comes with shooting film
3. I can easily process B&W film at home with minimal equipment, setup and hassle
4. Scanning film gives me yet more control to create a high quality digital image file
5. Editing a digital image file (whether a scan or a digital capture) gives me a high degree of control over the final presentation
6. Printing a digital image file provides me with many presentation options
7. No need to procure, operate, maintain equipment and chemistry that would be necessary for a wet darkroom for large prints (16x20+)
8. Immediate printing - no need to mix chemistry, setup, wash and dry trays, clean the sink, and put things away after a printing session
9. Minute changes can be made in my digital image file and it can be quickly reprinted with highly repeatable results
10. When people see my digital prints (B&W or color) on high quality photo paper, no one has ever asked me "how did you print this?'

Points 4 through 10 apply to digital as well, pretty much exclusively digital attributes.
Points 1 & 2 are not exclusive to film.

Ponit 10. Have you ever been able to compare for yourself the same image printed in a darkroom vs. inkjet at home?

 

[cliveh]

Points 4 through 10 apply to digital as well, pretty much exclusively digital attributes.
Points 1 & 2 are not exclusive to film.

Ponit 10. Have you ever been able to compare for yourself the same image printed in a darkroom vs. inkjet at home?

Point 10. Yes and inkjet is as good if not better.

 

[Pieter12]

Point 10. Yes and inkjet is as good if not better.

Congratulations

 

[djdister]

Points 4 through 10 apply to digital as well, pretty much exclusively digital attributes.
Points 1 & 2 are not exclusive to film.

Ponit 10. Have you ever been able to compare for yourself the same image printed in a darkroom vs. inkjet at home?

The fact that many of my points apply equally to film or digital is part of the point.

Regarding point #10, see my post #27 above.

 

[Pieter12]

The fact that many of my points apply equally to film or digital is part of the point.

Then why not just shoot digital?

 

[djdister]

Then why not just shoot digital?

Perhaps you should re-read post #38 more carefully.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

Amen + archival permanence is now very good when using the right papers.

As we know it today, giclée media has not been around sufficiently long enough (in its mature form) to assert permanence along multiple decade scales of time.

Giclée prints (Epson) that I produced in 2002-2004 have lost their depth of colour, even in dark, sealed storage. Today, media and ink stability (particularly Hahnemühle's specialist media and Canon's inks) push permanence to several orders of magnitude stronger, but we still cannot make airy assumptions about very long term archival permanence – it needs time. Conversely, Ilfochrome Classic prints produced from the same time and a decade before that, are pristine, be they matted only or fully framed.

Acceptance of giclée as a print method is not at question. How long they last is the subject of some debate at this time, but it must be informed debate, rather than this method vs that method stuff! . Will darkroom prints last longer? RA4? We will need to be around another 40+ years to assert confidently that giclée prints have staying power in both raw and framed presentation, even if treated to museum-grade conservation framing. Present day – prints are impressive things to gaze at (an extraordinarily wide gamut – with Adobe RGB, well suited to the subtle nuances of transparency film is their strongest point, but there is much, much more behind that) and we are absolutely spoilt for choice with the quality, technology and diversity of media – far more diverse than the limited range of papers for wet darkroom use.

Prints made today, even on the best cotton or silk baryta media, will require astute TLC to have them remain as beautiful as early 1990s RA4 prints, or the gold standard of Ilfochrome Classics – widely said to go a full 500 years. Yeah, I've heard about that! Well, I won't be around then, but there is no harm in leaving a lasting image...

 

[Don_ih]

inkjet is as good if not better

Inkjet from what? And better than any enlargement made by anyone? That would be quite a claim.

 

[GregY]

As we know it today, giclée media has not been around sufficiently long enough (in its mature form) to assert permanence along multiple decade scales of time.

Giclée prints (Epson) that I produced in 2002-2004 have lost their depth of colour, even in dark, sealed storage. Today, media and ink stability (particularly Hahnemühle's specialist media and Canon's inks) push permanence to several orders of magnitude stronger, but we still cannot make airy assumptions about very long term archival permanence – it needs time. Conversely, Ilfochrome Classic prints produced from the same time and a decade before that, are pristine, be they matted only or fully framed.

Acceptance of giclée as a print method is not at question. How long they last is the subject of some debate at this time, but it must be informed debate, rather than this method vs that method stuff! . Will darkroom prints last longer? RA4? We will need to be around another 40+ years to assert confidently that giclée prints have staying power in both raw and framed presentation, even if treated to museum-grade conservation framing. Present day – prints are impressive things to gaze at (an extraordinarily wide gamut – with Adobe RGB, well suited to the subtle nuances of transparency film is their strongest point, but there is much, much more behind that) and we are absolutely spoilt for choice with the quality, technology and diversity of media – far more diverse than the limited range of papers for wet darkroom use.

Prints made today, even on the best cotton or silk baryta media, will require astute TLC to have them remain as beautiful as early 1990s RA4 prints, or the gold standard of Ilfochrome Classics – widely said to go a full 500 years. Yeah, I've heard about that! Well, I won't be around then, but there is no harm in leaving a lasting image...

....don't forget dye transfer prints

 

[Pieter12]

Perhaps you should re-read post #38 more carefully.

I did. Points 1 and 2 are your personal preferences. I get it, but they are not good arguments for shooting film. I shoot film precisely because I want to print in the darkroom. As a matter of fact, I wish LVT negatives were more prevalent, I would print all my digital black and white work in the darkroom, too. I can leave the darkroom idle for months and come back and start printing immediately. If I don't use my inkjet printer regularly, it needs cleaning--using up a lot of expensive ink in the process.

You may be able to match your darkroom prints, but I can't seem to get quite there, maybe 90%. Plus I find it frustrating when my Epson R2000 printer starts leaving streaks on the paper, sometimes along the edges, sometimes in the image. Not clogged-head streaks. And problems with cartridges not being recognized, requiring them to be reseated over and over. Sadly, maintenance and support for these printers is close to nonexistent and OEM ink is no longer available, something that could be the case for just about any cartridge printer today sometime in the near future. Maybe if I shelled out the really big bucks for a 40" roll-fed machine I could get a maintenance contract (for even more expense).