For those that do both analog and digital printing

[Ron789]

+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.

A high-quality digital print is neither faster nor cheaper. High-quality digital printing is a serious craft that takes many years of experience. And even then, one print can take many hours of fine-tuning. As for the cost.... the cost of good paper and ink is significant. E.g. a sheet of Hahnemuhle Fine Art digital paper costs as much as a sheet of Ilford MGWTFB. Good ink is way more expensive than darkroom chemicals.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

A high-quality digital print is neither faster nor cheaper. High-quality digital printing is a serious craft that takes many years of experience. And even then, one print can take many hours of fine-tuning. As for the cost.... the cost of good paper and ink is significant. E.g. a sheet of Hahnemuhle Fine Art digital paper costs as much as a sheet of Ilford MGWTFB. Good ink is way more expensive than darkroom chemicals.

if it takes you many hours of fine tuning, then you must not print very much. I happen to have one of those expensive printers with very expensive ink and use Hahnemuhle Fine Art digital paper so often I keep a far amount of it in house. It does take some initial time to calibrate things so that you can consistently and reliably correlate what you see on your display with what you’ll be able to see on the paper, but once you get past that step, producing prints tends not to be an iterative process that uses a lot of paper or ink beyond what it takes to make one or two smaller proof prints, and then *the print*. At least it doesn’t in my experience, and I make a fair number of prints.

 

[Ron789]

if it takes you many hours of fine tuning, then you must not print very much.

I wasn't talking about myself. I've done quite a bit of printing with an Epson sc-p600 and many different papers over the past few of years, say 1000 prints or so, mostly for books and exhibitions. I consider myself still a beginner and amateur.
But I happen to know one of the best (maybe the best) digital printing professionals in my country. He makes a living making high quality prints for musea, galleries, artists etc.. He has his own workshop with the best large format Epson printers and all the professional image processing equipment you can think of. And making a high (i.e. museum-) quality print takes him hours. It's not so much about the technique, it's about interpreting the image and the artist's intent and translating that into the best possible print.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I wasn't talking about myself. I've done quite a bit of printing with an Epson sc-p600 and many different papers over the past few of years, say 1000 prints or so, mostly for books and exhibitions. I consider myself still a beginner and amateur.
But I happen to know one of the best (maybe the best) digital printing professionals in my country. He makes a living making high quality prints for musea, galleries, artists etc.. He has his own workshop with the best large format Epson printers and all the professional image processing equipment you can think of. And making a high (i.e. museum-) quality print takes him hours. It's not so much about the technique, it's about interpreting the image and the artist's intent and translating that into the best possible print.

well,yes, I was referring to the technical aspects. When it comes to artistic intent, yes, that can take time working with the artist to realize their vision, but you have to do that no matter how you produce the print, so I wouldn’t necessarily count that as time, effort, or skill towards producing digital prints as I’d have to put much of that same time and effort in if it was a darkroom print. In fact, it’d probably take longer with the darkroom print.

 

[Ron789]

So we seem to agree, Adrian. Darkroom printing to get perfect results may cost more or less time and effort than digital printing, but it may also be the opposite. I guess my point is that many analog photographers / printers claim that anolog printing is a serious craft while digital printing is easy, fast and cheap. That's nonsense.... high quality digital printing is a craft that requires serious competence, time, cost and effort.
That being said, I personally enjoy analog darkroom prointing a lot more than digital printing.

 

[removedacct1]

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.

This is why I like making inkjet prints from my wet plate negatives. They can be very difficult to interpret correctly in the darkroom, but once they've been processed digitally, they make identical inkjet prints every time. That is a huge asset.

 

[wiltw]

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

Same for me.

25 years ago the small group of photographers I was in had a Holiday Exchange. Each person (about 30 of us) would choose one photo and make prints for everyone to exchange. I would choose one slide, and then print on Ilfochrome direct print paper (nee Cibachrome). For as much enjoyment as I got from an ordinary darkroom session, it was multiplied greatly by the satisfaction of printing 30 exact Cibachrome duplicates among which one could find zero variances from copy to copy.

Making one vs. 30 of the same from a digital source carries none of the same satisfaction for me as making 30 identical in the darkroom.

Viewing a digital inkjet print vs. an optically exposed and chemically processed print does have a difference, and my preference is for the optically exposed and chemically developed paper print. Yet I can get tons of satisfaction in viewing a digital photo of mine which is commercially reproduced on canvas wrap at 12 x 60" size, too...I just get none of the satisfaction of making it in the darkroom myself.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

This is why I like making inkjet prints from my wet plate negatives. They can be very difficult to interpret correctly in the darkroom, but once they've been processed digitally, they make identical inkjet prints every time. That is a huge asset.

I understand the productivity value of printing digitally. As for fine art, do you think it each print being exactly the same devalues the print? For other fine art print mediums like etchings and lithographs, what makes them special is each is slightly different and made the the hand of the artist. Prints made by Adams are more coveted than prints made by his assistants. What's the difference between ink jet digital prints vs offset litho prints printed by the thousands?

 

[Pieter12]

I understand the productivity value of printing digitally. As for fine art, do you think it each print being exactly the same devalues the print? For other fine art print mediums like etchings and lithographs, what makes them special is each is slightly different and made the the hand of the artist. Prints made by Adams are more coveted than prints made by his assistants. What's the difference between ink jet digital prints vs offset litho prints printed by the thousands?

Fine art litho prints are not exclusively (or even usually) made by the artist. But they are made under the supervision of the artist. Lithos stones and etching plates wear and there is a limit to how many prints can be made. Also, etchings sometimes have stages, where the artist will go back to the plate and add to it, changing the prints as the edition is run. Conversely, photo prints made on an inkjet ("giclée"!, "archival pigment") usually are identical. Darkroom prints can vary depending on how much and involved the process is--dodging and burning, masking, bleaching, toning, etc--and can vary throughout thee edition. The one thing for all multiple print runs is the number of prints in the edition, be it fine art etching, lithograph, silkscreen, inkjet or darkroom wet print. The fewer there are, the more valuable each one will be.

 

[removedacct1]

What's the difference between ink jet digital prints vs offset litho prints printed by the thousands?

I'm not printing thousands of copies, I am making editions of thirty or less.

 

[jtk]

Fine art litho prints are not exclusively (or even usually) made by the artist. But they are made under the supervision of the artist. Lithos stones and etching plates wear and there is a limit to how many prints can be made. Also, etchings sometimes have stages, where the artist will go back to the plate and add to it, changing the prints as the edition is run. Conversely, photo prints made on an inkjet ("giclée"!, "archival pigment") usually are identical. Darkroom prints can vary depending on how much and involved the process is--dodging and burning, masking, bleaching, toning, etc--and can vary throughout thee edition. The one thing for all multiple print runs is the number of prints in the edition, be it fine art etching, lithograph, silkscreen, inkjet or darkroom wet print. The fewer there are, the more valuable each one will be.

Has that been proven true? Ansel, for example, has produced thousands (via darkroom "assistants", not to mention books, posters, and (tellingly) coffee cans.

 

[VinceInMT]

I've been printing in the darkroom for 47 years. I've done very little digital printing. What I have learned is that the longer I do this and the more experience I have I acquired, I get fewer prints/session.

 

[jtk]

Prints with believable "limited editions" may be more valuable than prints with unlimited editions...by some photographers. On the other hand, prints "by" people like HCB were virtually never made by him. His images are more valuable in reproduction rights than as pieces of paper....probably true for most of Ansel's prints.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Prints with believable "limited editions" may be more valuable than prints with unlimited editions...by some photographers. On the other hand, prints "by" people like HCB were virtually never made by him. His images are more valuable in reproduction rights than as pieces of paper....probably true for most of Ansel's prints.

Here's a question about digital vs analog prints. Digital files could be copied then printed. The quality between the "original" and the "copy" is the same. However, it's not true with analog processes. An analog print usually involves the original piece of film in the process. The piece of film was also present when the image was created. Does this add any value to a print or not? Or it just depends on the viewer of the print?

 

[jtk]

Value has all kinds of meanings. Most here seem to be flip flopping...which isn't a bad thing.

I valued being able to make sets of photos of my hundred-plus years ago ancestors for my today families. ..starting with everything from ancient decaying negatives and exquisite 19th century studio portraits. I also valued being able to make a half dozen sets of 21, 2 views each prints of every cousin and spouse etc that I accumulated from old slides, my digi photos, and email attachments as well as snapshots I received and saved over decades.

For me, value almost entirely to do with the pleasure of making for myself , gifting and occasionally selling to others. Not only do I believe my inkjet prints will outlast most hobbiest and "affordable" lab prints, and are visually precisely what I want, I'm certain that more people that I care about care a lot about them.

 

[jim10219]

The darkroom is harder to get a good print. Digital is harder to get the perfect print.

Here's why. In the darkroom, the skills sets required are limited, but many. There are a lot of variables you can play with, but they're pretty much all stuff you can do by hand. Dodging and burning. Adjusting the contrast. Adjusting the development. All of that stuff is pretty intuitive, though it takes some patience, experience, and skill to get really good at. But the concepts are easy to understand, even if their execution isn't.

In the digital realm, it's as easy a hooking up a printer, loading paper, and clicking the print button. However, if that print isn't satisfactory to you, then you start down that rabbit hole of the behind the scenes technical mumbo-jumbo. Next thing you know, you're comparing perceptual vs. relative colorimetric, with and without blackpoint compensation, ICC printing profiles (at both the printer level and document level), calibration sets, drivers, RIP software settings, yadda, yadda, yadda... It gets crazy complicated really fast. Half the time, I give up and just print one that looks okay, and then try to correct the print at the file level with Photoshop rather than going through the all of the driver level settings and all of the behind the scenes stuff (which is what I probably should be doing). And even then, messing with curves tool in Photoshop can be a nightmare sometimes. You either spend years with your head in technical jargon books, or learn to tolerate "good enough".

So that's my take. The darkroom is harder to get good at. The digital printer is harder to master.

 

[jtk]

The darkroom is harder to get a good print. Digital is harder to get the perfect print.

Here's why. In the darkroom, the skills sets required are limited, but many. There are a lot of variables you can play with, but they're pretty much all stuff you can do by hand. Dodging and burning. Adjusting the contrast. Adjusting the development. All of that stuff is pretty intuitive, though it takes some patience, experience, and skill to get really good at. But the concepts are easy to understand, even if their execution isn't.

In the digital realm, it's as easy a hooking up a printer, loading paper, and clicking the print button. However, if that print isn't satisfactory to you, then you start down that rabbit hole of the behind the scenes technical mumbo-jumbo. Next thing you know, you're comparing perceptual vs. relative colorimetric, with and without blackpoint compensation, ICC printing profiles (at both the printer level and document level), calibration sets, drivers, RIP software settings, yadda, yadda, yadda... It gets crazy complicated really fast. Half the time, I give up and just print one that looks okay, and then try to correct the print at the file level with Photoshop rather than going through the all of the driver level settings and all of the behind the scenes stuff (which is what I probably should be doing). And even then, messing with curves tool in Photoshop can be a nightmare sometimes. You either spend years with your head in technical jargon books, or learn to tolerate "good enough".

So that's my take. The darkroom is harder to get good at. The digital printer is harder to master.

You've just listed many of the possibilities...but you have not mentioned that most fine inkjet printers get VERY good prints with digital while ignoring most of that. You CA N ""do it by hand" with a little practice, often simply by following instructions.

IMO most darkroom printers put up with mediocrity, not even striving for "good." If they want to get good they have to pay the dues to learn how, just as with digital.

Darkroom printers may be more easily satisfied than inkjet printers... But that's just my impression, having seen thousands of both categories.

The notion that many of either are "mastered" would surprise the best inkjet or darkroom printers.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I was in the darkroom last week and had a blast. I'm an old dog struggling with split grade printing. I also do digital printing. I have my monitor and printer calibrated with different papers. It was a pain to get all of it calibrated, now there are really no surprises with color balance. Because darkroom prints require more struggling even for seasoned printers that there's an Ikea effect? Are they valued more because there more work in making a darkroom print? Who really cares?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I never really enjoyed darkroom printing, but I prefer to process my own film and print digitally.

Digital printing can be beautiful no matter what anyone says. Just like darkroom work, it has a learning curve.
I taught photography for decades and saw first hand how some passionate photographers were not good with computer skills.
If you enjoy using computers, monitors, software and understand how to tweak for your own preferences, you will get good results.
If you have it in your mind darkroom prints only matter, than stick with darkroom printing.

There are people that are tone deaf visually (like there are musically tone deaf individuals), and they never get it.
Patience and the desire to learn is what makes a great craftsman IMO.

My friend and former colleague whom I worked for graduated from Brooks. He was a great printer but didn't like it in the darkroom. He had a long career as a photographer. He took digital photography like a fish to water. He worked for a university for decades and when digital imaging technology became mature, he never shot another roll of film. For me, I still like film. I don't print enough in the darkroom to be good at it.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I never stopped shooting film. Currently working on a 6x12 project with my Cambo Wide 650.
I just love the look. Film + digital imaging is my favorite look printed.
I digitize all my film via cameras now and print with Epson printers.
A great time to be a photographer!

Best to you,
Darr

Hi Darlene,
Great image! There are definitely huge advantages in digitizing negs and printing them digitally. In darkroom terms, you could digitally split grade the image and see a positive image while you work on you image. I think Ansel Adams would have loved today's technology. Yes it is a great time to be a photographer.

 

[destroya]

i have and sometimes still do print both ways. at times, dark room printing can be almost therapeutic. it can also be a rea pain in the ass. but when done right, its hard to get much better results.

I only print B&W with my enlarger. I have the stuff to do color, but never got around to doing it. now that I care for an elderly parent, finding the time to set up a marathon pringing session is tough. I embraced digital printing a few years ago as a way to solve that problem. for color The results I get are great and have now gotten to the point that my B&W digital prints are hard for family and friends to differentiate from my dark room prints. Using a good paper makes a lot of difference.

there are leaning curves for both ways. both can deliver great results. the thing I like about digital more than wet printing is the ease of repeatable results. once I get an image digitally dialed in, I can produce the same results over and over as often as I want. in the dark room there are always the "gymnastics" that need to be done to get similar results. I once made what I would call a once in a lifetime perfect print. I have never been able to replicate that print, no matter how hard I tried. with notes about lens aperture, time, lens height, developer and time in developer and so on. but that is also the greatness of wet printing. every one (the prints), FOR ME, is a little different.

2 days ago I printed a 4x5 velvia shot. it took me a little over 2 hours, from start of scan to letting the print dry on the kitchen table for a few hours. I could never have gotten results of this quality this fast if wet printed (I took the same shot with a sheet of delta 100, so I could and will print it wet when I get the chance).

its not a competition. they are just 2 options of printing a final image. feel free to print in the way that gives you the best results and makes you happy. after all, thats what life is all about.

john