For those that do both analog and digital printing

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I have been a darkroom printer for many decades and printing digitally for a while. A few of weeks ago, I went into my darkroom and struggled for hours just to get a few crappy prints. Some days in the darkroom are very rewarding. On a good day, I'll make 3-5 good prints. My wife told me to enter an art show last week so I made some prints for the show printed on my Canon inkjet printer. I'm very satisfied with the prints I made for the show. Just as satisfied when I've had a good day in my darkroom. For those that print in the darkroom and digitally, which process you think requires more skill and craftsmanship? Do printing processes require the same level of skill, but in different areas? Does it matter as long as you get a beautiful print?

 

[Pioneer]

For me the darkroom is far more challenging, but it is also more rewarding.

I have never been able to make 3 good silver gelatin prints in a day unless I was just making copies of the same print. Usually it is the other way around, 3 days to make one good print.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[MattKing]

I'm much better at printing in the darkroom.
But I don't think either one requires more skill and craftsmanship.
Each requires a different set of skills and craftsmanship. There is some overlap between the subsets.

 

[Pieter12]

I like digital printing less for a couple of reasons:
1. Even with careful monitor calibration, I am looking at an image rendered by transmitted light, while the final print is viewed by reflected light. It's never going to be the same. Plus, some compensation is needed to account for the paper to be used.
2. Inkjet printers need too much maintenance--they clog, get out of whack, can leave streaks on prints.

A beautiful inkjet print on nice paper is marvelous. A beautiful darkroom print is too, but I feel it is so much more the result of my skill and craftsmanship (and serendipity!) that it is somehow more special.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

A beautiful inkjet print on nice paper is marvelous. A beautiful darkroom print is too, but I feel it is so much more the result of my skill and craftsmanship (and serendipity!) that it is somehow more special.

I do feel that darkroom prints have more have a human and organic quality. It's virtually impossibly to burn 2 prints exactly the same. If I burn and dodge in the computer, all the prints will look the same. My monitor is calibrated pretty close to my prints. Yes looking at transmitted light looks different than reflected light. My prints rarely look exactly what I see on my monitor. I think ink jet prints sometimes are just too perfect. I'm going to experiment doing encaustic wax over my prints to see if it tickles my creative bone.

 

[Alan9940]

But I don't think either one requires more skill and craftsmanship.
Each requires a different set of skills and craftsmanship.

Perfectly said! I'm a fair darkroom printer and I'm pretty good with PS on the desktop. I enjoy producing prints in both camps, but for very different reasons.

 

[guangong]

Much of the choice depends on whether you prefer to stand (darkroom) or sit (computer). For reasons other than photography, I already sit at computer too much by necessity. No need for self inflicted unpleasantness.

 

[Mr Bill]

For those that print in the darkroom and digitally, which process you think requires more skill and craftsmanship?

They're just different.

With film and paper you're doing physical things. You need to mix chemicals; you need some tools to measure volume, sometimes weight, temperature, and time. You need to know how to protect yourself, when needed, and how long the chemicals are good for. You sometimes need to know how to align your enlarger, how to keep film clean, how to control exposure times, and what lens apertures are preferred. Then there's the mechanical motions of processing, etc. On and on.

With digital printing you need to know how to set up and load your printer, how to install print drivers on your computer, as well as ICC profiles. And how to operate image-processing software. If you do pro-style work you likely will be using a hardware/software package to "profile" your monitor. After that it's mostly about clicking software buttons and sliders while the softer performs complicated actions on an image file.

In both cases it's possible to "split" the expertise into a couple of categories. In the days of pro-labs printing optically, for example, you could have a top-rated custom printer who has virtually no knowledge of how to mix or handle the chemicals. Those parts could be farmed out to a technician who uses similarly specialized skills to make sure that a chemical-mechanical processing system produces "proper" and consistent results, as well as being environmentally "correct" and properly treated for a long lifespan.

With digital printing it's likewise possible to have a skilled printer - one who manipulates image files - who has almost no knowledge of computer hardware. An IT specialist can handle the hardware setup, including network setup and maintenance, etc.

To reiterate, they're different. I think it's fairly rare for a person to be highly skilled in all aspects. It's relatively easy to be somewhat competent in most of these aspects, but just the time and effort needed tends to limit how deep one dives into these.

 

[Mr Bill]

Fwiw in my large-lab work experience I've worked with dozens of professional color correctors - people who did this for the major part of the workday. And unless you've actually been there you can't hardly believe how good many of these people are. If you are internet-educated on this sort of thing you might have learned that the "proper" approach is to make one change at a time. Well, professional color correctors don't work this way. They do everything at once. They might say, for example, "oh, this needs about 7 units of such a color, and I also see a little of such-and-such, say 2 units, maybe 3, but 2 units will be safe without overshooting. And this will lighten the face a little so I'll add 2 units of density." And they'll be real close almost all the time.

What I'm leading up to is that the people who are this good have gotten this way largely by virtue of experience, which takes time. So they don't generally have this same level of skill, for example, in mixing chemicals or recovering silver, or knowing what the local environmental disposal laws are. So this whole question of, "which takes more skill?" also depends on how deep one's skill is in certain areas.

 

[David Brown]

... I don't think either one requires more skill and craftsmanship.
Each requires a different set of skills and craftsmanship. There is some overlap between the subsets.

I used to say that anyone that thinks making an "exhibition" grade print digitally is easier than making an exhibition print in the darkroom has never made one digitally. It's the "all you do is push a button" myth that leads people to think that digital printing is easy. At that level it is! Just as it was when film went through the one hour lab. Easy!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I enjoy printing in the darkroom and I enjoy holding a chemical print even more.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you want to ease printing in the darkroom then get a meter of some sort, or one of those fancy timers with a probe. That'll make darkroom printing as easy as stinkjet. You can skip the test strips and your first print is as adequate as a first print on a stinkjet.

And I'd echo David's words above. A great digital print is difficult to make even if you have all the knowledge and tools to do it. Of course just popping out a print digitally is a piece of cake, unless your heads are clogged or you ran out of ink....

I print both. One isn't necessarily easier than the other, but one is more enjoyable and has less frustration.

 

[fgorga]

I view the difference between a silver gelatin print and a pigment on paper print in exactly the same manner that I view the difference between a silver gelatin print and a platinum print. They are different media made via different processes... period. Just like the difference between watercolor painting and oil painting.

The different processes are just that... different. In general, one process is not inherently better than another. For a particular image one process might work better to fulfill the makers vision than another but that is a different and specific conversation

Personally, I am a much better at pigment on paper printing than I ever was at silver gelatin printing. I just could never find enough time to get the practice in the darkroom to become really good.

I do not make silver gelatin prints anymore. However, I still spend a significant amount of time in the "dim room" printing mainly cyanotypes (which often get toned) as well as a few Van Dyke browns and salt prints.

I still, on occasion, spend time in the darkroom developing black and white 4x5 film which I scan for printing.

That said, most of my work, even the alt process stuff starts out digital these days. The reason for this is, in one sense, simple; the freedom to experiment with the camera without incurring a significant per exposure cost (both money and time) leads, for me at least, to more interesting photographs.

 

[fgorga]

I enjoy printing in the darkroom and I enjoy holding a chemical print even more.

I am not looking to start a fight, but "chemical print" is just silly.

Pigment on paper, silver gelatin, platinum, cyanotype, Van Dyke brown, etc., etc. are all "chemical prints".

Without chemicals you ain't got nothin!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am not looking to start a fight, but "chemical print" is just silly.

Pigment on paper, silver gelatin, platinum, cyanotype, Van Dyke brown, etc., etc. are all "chemical prints".

Without chemicals you ain't got nothin!

Have you ever held a double weight silver gelatin print? The difference between holding a new born baby and looking a newspaper photo of the baby. Jes' sayin'

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Yeah I've had similar experiences. My Epson prints constantly impress me with their level of detail and tonal range. But I'm addicted to the darkroom! There is just some magic in there for me. However I've sworn off certian things. I don't optical print beyond 16x20 for one. The big trays, futzing about with acrobatic dodging and burning at that scale...no longer for me.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I would never attempt to print 3 to 5 prints in one day in the darkroom.
I like to do the complete process which entails fixing properly and then toning in selenium with a proper wash.
trying to make several prints in one session weakens your ability to concentrate on making at least one excellent print.
I've heard that Paul Caponigro sometimes spends up to a week making a print!
I also prefer to make contact prints from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives and that will save you lots of time.
lately I have been making my own POP emulsions so I'm not spending much time in the dark except to make negatives...

 

[MattKing]

Sometimes I will print lots of prints - such as for the Postcard Exchange.
And yes, I use the refrigerator to air dry RC prints.

 

[fgorga]

Have you ever held a double weight silver gelatin print? The difference between holding a new born baby and looking a newspaper photo of the baby. Jes' sayin'

Not only have I held a silver gelatin print or two, I've made a few in my day; made my first one in 1970.

I'm not questioning the value of silver gelatin prints.

I'm simply pointing out that "chemical print" is such a broad term that it is useless. It is certainly not a substitute for "silver gelatin" nor even for "darkroom print". In fact, "chemical print" is an accurate descriptor for every type of print one can make.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Sometimes I will print lots of prints - such as for the Postcard Exchange.
And yes, I use the refrigerator to air dry RC prints.

View attachment 247763

Dang Matt, that is just genius!

 

[MattKing]

I just hope this new refrigerator in our new place works as well - assuming I can put together something here that will work for a darkroom.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have limited amount of skills. I have darkroom enlargers and I have inkjet printer. It is much more easier most of the time to inkjet.
I don't mind to spend five sheets of DR paper to have only one good print from it. But pricing of DR paper leaves no choice.

 

[mshchem]

I'm more comfortable in my darkroom. I've never even tried to make a fine digital monochrome print. I love making inkjet prints from slides I scan with a Nikon scanner. My printers are inexpensive Canon printers. Several years back I had a 8 cartridge Epson pigment printer, made nice prints. I couldn't afford the upkeep.

I use Light room to make minor tweeks. Photoshop is more than I want.

 

[Pieter12]

Usually if I botch a darkroom print, I can trace the mistake and learn to correct it. Not always true with inkjet prints, where the mechanics of the printer are difficult for me to do much about. This can lead to a certain amount of frustration. For example, the other day I could not print with my Epson printer until I had removed and reseated 3 of the 6 ink cartridges a number of times before it would recognize them as properly installed, and proceed to print. Not to mention times when stray ink or lines appear on an otherwise beautiful 13x22 print--talk about money spent on paper and ink going to straight to the trash. In the darkroom, an inspection of a disappointing print can lead to how to make the next one better. Think of it as money spent on education.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I'm much better at printing in the darkroom.
But I don't think either one requires more skill and craftsmanship.
Each requires a different set of skills and craftsmanship. There is some overlap between the subsets.

+1

Exactly. There’s a little overlap, but each one is about the same, just different areas. For me, the darkroom is more a fun hobby where I can take my time. For digital prints, it’s less expensive per print, and quite a bit faster.