Does the quality of darkroom equipment matter?

[Pieter12]

Lartigue?

Adam's early work was printed using a contact frame (as was all of Weston's) - there is a movie somewhere of Adams using a contact frame, waving his hands over it for dodges and burns like he was conducting a symphony.

Most great photographer's earliest work was made with pretty down-market gear.

But not on 35mm film.

 

[Pieter12]

I want to mention one item that has improved the quality of my enlargements, namely, the dodging stick. I previously used a piece of some nondescript wire (maybe from a coat hanger?) and, sometimes, it would show in the print, despite my attempts to keep it moving. I did some research and found this really thin floral stem wire. I bought 30 and 24 gauge models. They are very, very thin, but rigid enough to hold a small piece of opaque paper at one end. The 30 gauge is so thin that it just oscillates nicely while you're holding it over the area to be dodged, completely disappearing from the print. This is one concrete example where the quality of the equipment had an appreciable effect on the quality of the print.

Music (spring) wire .020".

 

[Don_ih]

Lartigue?

Adam's early work was printed using a contact frame (as was all of Weston's) - there is a movie somewhere of Adams using a contact frame, waving his hands over it for dodges and burns like he was conducting a symphony.

Most great photographer's earliest work was made with pretty down-market gear.

I said "Examples" meaning examples of the "most interesting photos ever made", which @Hassasin had said were taken with box cameras.
Did Lartigue take the "most interesting photos ever made"? I don't think Adams and Weston were keen on the meniscus lens.

 

[Luckless]

“Good equipment" is context sensitive, and greatly depends on needs, skills, preference, and resources.

Would a high end professional, clean room based, digitally controlled, and auto aligned and calibrated enlarger make better prints for me than my omega d5 tucked into the corner of my apartment bedroom?

No. Because one of those options actually exists for me and can be used, and the other is a random fantasy that creates nothing real.

“Better" equipment is the stuff that reduces barriers, eases work, actually solves problems, and that you can actually have.

I swapped from a basic dial timer that was more than “good enough" to make prints with to a custom digital timer that I made to match the workflow in my mind, and it hasn’t really changed the overall quality of the prints I make. They're still unskilled, lack refinement, and have more dust spots than I would like. But I can get to that point slightly faster and with fewer wasted test prints than I was able to do with the more basic timer.

The digital timer works better for me, but I imagine it would annoy some on these forums. (Especially the few bugs I have in the code...) so it isn't objectively better than the basic timer it replaced, but it is a lot better for me.

And I think one of the most difficult parts of dealing with equipment for things like photography is being able to identify what the problems actually are, and what solutions can address them in a sensible manner. Throwing money at things for 'better' gear without acknowledging the problems you're trying to solve or how the different gear fixes those issues is an expensive way to spin your wheels without making a lot of progress towards the end goal of making images that meet your visions.

But if the goal is really just thinly veiled GAS, then of course you should go ahead and justify whatever's within budget.

 

[Pieter12]

Better is just that. Not different. If the equipment you are using is getting in the way of your making the best prints you can with you skill set, then better equipment will definitely make a difference. Different equipment with the same level of quality or trade-offs is just chasing your tail.

 

[Loose Gravel]

Check out Edward Weston's darkroom . (photo from Kim Weston's website)

 

[Pieter12]

From his daybooks, Weston had lots of problems caused by poor equipment. Bellows leaks, warped holders. bad film. He lost a lot of exposures due to fogging and even (because his exposures were hours long) because a truck drove down the street during the exposure. Weston made contact prints and the equipment you see in his darkroom was all he really needed and there really wasn't much "better equipment" to be had. He also lived hand to mouth most of his life.

 

[mshchem]

I’m using a zip tie with a wad of gaffer tape on the end of it so you can imagine I feel like a caveman.

Wad of tape, perfect. So long as you don't make a Wad the shape of a bunny rabbit

 

[Don_ih]

Wad of tape, perfect. So long as you don't make a Wad the shape of a bunny rabbit

Last one I used was a bamboo skewer with a piece of masking tape on the end (looked a bit like a flag).

I prefer burning to dodging.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ridiculous. EW's 8x10 contact prints might look nice, but his most of his negs wouldn't hold up very well enlarged. AA felt sorry for him, so talked a manufacturer into outright giving Edward a superior Protar lens. AA's own darkroom was hardly state of the art, and most of his pre-60's work didn't look good enlarged over 2X. We've got better cameras, better lenses, better film, better enlargers, and a bigger back of tricks. But there's no law against shoddy craftsmanship, regardless.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

The glass carriers I had (have? I may still have them...) were glass on the bottom and on the top. They were Omega D holders.

My 35mm enlarger is a Focomat which has the condenser directly on the negative. No glass underneath.

Re,

My 35mm enlarger is a Focomat which has the condenser directly on the negative. No glass underneath.

As did my fist enlarger Paterson!

 

[aparat]

I recently bought a Saunders Sing-L-Size easel. It was still in box, in an unused condition. What an awesome piece of kit this is! I still make bad prints, but at least I do it in style

 

[snusmumriken]

Check out Edward Weston's darkroom . (photo from Kim Weston's website) View attachment 334990

Yay, I have the same darkroom clock as Edward Weston!

 

[mgb74]

Anon Y. - Yes, BOTH top and bottom glass are necessary if you expect film to be consistently flat and truly in focus clear across. That is simply FACT known by every serious lab worker, although compromises inevitably occur in both high-speed commercial workflows as well as in many amateur applications. Just depends on your personal standards.

But in general, I never could figure out why people would spend thousand of dollars for yet another camera lens they'll seldom use, or to get the latest n' greatest tweak of some camera model, or even some silly designer camera bag, but make terrible compromises when it comes to darkroom gear. You're only as good as your weakest link.

Or spend thousands on another lens just to post the photo on Facebook so their friends can view it on their phone.

 

[aparat]

Here's one gadget I recently found in my cabinet of forgotten junk. I am sure a lot of you have such a drawer or cabinet. Well, in mine, I found this FC-220 Anti-Static Film Cleanerm, looking unused, still in box. I cleaned it, replaced the filter, and tried cleaning a couple of dusty negs with it. Needless to say, it works great! I wish there was a similar device for cleaning the glass negative carrier. Any ideas on how do keep the four glass surfaces free of dust?

FC-220 Film Cleaner by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[DREW WILEY]

The problem with those anti-static cleaning things is that they can wreak havoc with modern solid state electronic devices in the vicinity, including certain enlarger colorhead controllers.

 

[shead]

Allthis talk reminds me of college days, 1989-91. I was in photography classes and had the use of the school darkroom, the equipment was mediocre at best. But then I shot photo assignments for the school newspaper and had what was essentially a private darkroom for the paper photographers - and exceptional equipment. Unlimited bulk film too. Guess who shot and printed all his class assignments for free in the university newspaper darkroom?

 

[eli griggs]

Without reading all the responses, I feel that many here are stuck on the dollar value/quality factor of their tools, while what really matters is, does your kit do what you NEED it to do, well?

Then ponder, are there features that I need, to be able to advance my enlarging/photography in furtherance to what I'm looking to being able to do?

When you ask yourself, will this equipment do a good job, keep in mind that with premium equipment, there is always a penalty in cost, because of the premium name and is there solid workhorse kit out there that'll do just as much, and a good job, without the name factor that we too often confuse with suitable quality.

A solid enlarger and kit, with no regard to its cost or name brand, is just a solid enlarger and kit that will allow your best work to emerge.

That is always the bottom line; no a showroom for fancy darkroom equipment.

IMO.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sure a lot of nonsense at times, alluding to Weston and AA, and why great photographers don't really need anything but the most primitive basics. Well, AA sure went through utter hell printing many of those famous images, and then hell again retouching the prints. Of course, maybe a stew tastes better if you first need to walk a mile barefoot in the snow and cut firewood with a pocket knife, and then fend off a grizzly bear with the same on the way back. And then you gotta skin and butcher the bear for meat, unless it preempted the opportunity by skinning you first. But there are alternatives nowadays.

 

[Cinema]

Been getting back into printing the last couple years and i picked up some budget equipment. i think my easel which is one of those all-in-one (Premier 4-in-1) etc doesn't keep the paper flat. so currently i kind of roll the paper on either side to uncurl it before i place it in the easel. i think the saunders 4 blade easels are supposed to keep paper very flat but they are expensive and i got this easel for $20

 

[eli griggs]

I've no read most opinions, but one thing I'd like to note, is once you KNOW how to make a proper print and what it will look like when dried down, toned or otherwise treated, it's pretty damn hard to make a bad one.

I do advocate buying an actual professional print, for the dark room, made to top standards, so you know what a good print, with true blacks, whites and division of tones and shades should look like.

No to copy those same elements but to aspire to quality printmaking, regardless of topic.

I also believe, whatever kit you have, unless it's subpar and causing problems or too specialized in its operations for a good work environment, stick to the basics of B&W print making, at every stage, and experiment in one aspect/process at a time, no going for a free for all, but in carefully noted record of what the basic conditions were and the complete notation of ALL work done.


Basic kit can take you a long way and knowing you're no making prints like others here should no push you into spending the coin to meet, their standards like fancy temperature control baths, agitators, formulas and papers.


You will be able to do plenty in a starter darkroom and some kit you can whip up yourself, so take a breath, go over the basics time and time again and practice/print as often as you can, with your own negatives shot in many lighting situations.

There is no reason you can no make perfect prints, other than distraction and a lack of experience with the basic steps.

IMO.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've no read most opinions, but one thing I'd like to note, is once you KNOW how to make a proper print and what it will look like when dried down, toned or otherwise treated, it's pretty damn hard to make a bad one.

I do advocate buying an actual professional print, for the dark room, made to top standards, so you know what a good print, with true blacks, whites and division of tones and shades should look like.

No to copy those same elements but to aspire to quality printmaking, regardless of topic.

I also believe, whatever kit you have, unless it's subpar and causing problems or too specialized in its operations for a good work environment, stick to the basics of B&W print making, at every stage, and experiment in one aspect/process at a time, no going for a free for all, but in carefully noted record of what the basic conditions were and the complete notation of ALL work done.


Basic kit can take you a long way and knowing you're no making prints like others here should no push you into spending the coin to meet, their standards like fancy temperature control baths, agitators, formulas and papers.


You will be able to do plenty in a starter darkroom and some kit you can whip up yourself, so take a breath, go over the basics time and time again and practice/print as often as you can, with your own negatives shot in many lighting situations.

There is no reason you can no make perfect prints, other than distraction and a lack of experience with the basic steps.

IMO.

That is a way to deflate ones ego to complete flatness!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I remember when Fred Picker of Zone VI Studios sold "master reference prints" made by his assistants from some of his negatives. I never fell for that myself, but someone who did called them the worst prints he'd ever seen in his life, after purchasing a set, which might have cost around $30 at the time. You don't get something for nothing.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Having good darkroom equipment helps when you spend time ensuring that it's in working order, and that you are using it to the best of its capabilities.

It's the cumulative effect of controlling various parameters that helped me make prints closer to the standard I wanted to achieve.

My enlargers are in good condition (Vivitar VI and Beseler 23 C II) but they are nothing exceptional. I made sure to have good lenses (50 mm Minolta f/2.8 for 35 mm, 80 mm Schneider Componon-S for 6x6, and Fujinon 90 mm for 6x9), but there's always better ones.

Let's say you start with a good negative from a good camera (another can of worms, but I digress), then you have to control the alignment of the baseboard/lens/negative stages, pick the optimal lens aperture, ensure even illumination, reduce vibrations, use a glass holder if needed, find a good easel.

Then you have to test your safelight (is it fogging your prints?), use an accurate timer and ensure your filters are in good condition. Maybe a foot switch can help you minimize vibrations.

Finally, having methods and controls that can help you work faster will help you stay consistent, and not waste time. I have marked my enlarger columns with the most common print sizes I use, and I did the same with my easels, so if I want to do an 8x10 with margins, I don't have to check twice my settings. Having an f-stop sequence also helps saving time: whatever the base time, if I want to add 1/4 of a stop, I know how much I need to ask.

Ditto for note-taking: knowing which ballpark to start from helps you nail the correct exposure more quickly.

Then, after all that technical stuff is taken care of, your mind starts spending time on the other aspects of a photograph: form, intent, mood...

 

[MattKing]

Way back when, when the circumstances of like had kept me out of the darkroom for too long, I vowed to take steps to remedy that.
As part of that I bought such a reference print from Donald Miller, who I think may have been a near original APUG member.
It is a pretty decent print, and I still have it nearby.
As it turns out Donald's style of printing is/was significantly different than mine, but it served a purpose. It helped confirm for me that as out of practice as I was, I was still able to make reasonable judgments about print quality, and make the corresponding necessary adjustments to improve my own results, even if I clearly needed to do some practicing!
The other thing I did around then was to enroll in the only night school darkroom course I could find where the class hours made sense with my way too busy schedule.
It was at a Vancouver high school, where they had some pretty well equipped darkroom facilities and a photography classroom. It wasn't ideal, because the course was designed for beginners, not those with lots of experience but skills that needed some exercise, but it gave me some darkroom time, so I got a lot out of it.
I reference that night school experience because of one thing I observed at that time. The classroom walls and boards were covered with student work, which was fine, but there weren't nearly enough examples of quality prints. I realized then that if you don't have good work to look at, it is really hard to learn how to do good work yourself.
It is difficult to rely on books for that sort of visual reference, because prints in books have characteristics themselves, and without experience it is difficult to evaluate print quality.
So I would recommend to anyone new to this that they seek out others with good experience who can help them identify good prints. If one doesn't have the luxury of regularly engaging with someone like that, it can make sense to have some prints that can serve as reference prints.