I May Be Building A REAL Darkroom

[David Hall]

I had one, until about ten years ago. I now use the kitchen during the day for film, and at night for Azo printing. I rent a darkroom 15 minutes away for enlargements, color work, and finishing work. It's not the most convenient setup and I am constantly stressing about chemicals and contamination, but it does work and I am able to do all the film I want and print it however I need it.

I am refinancing the house and have the opportunity to cash out a little bit and I have been seriously thinking of building a darkroom again. I still have the photographic hardware..sink, enlarger, archival washers, etc.

Two questions:

1) Is it worth it, or will it be the computer room with a huge sink ten years from now?

2) If I do, I have and know all the basics...flow, active ventilation, dryside/wetside, chemistry under the sink, screens under the counter, etc. I may have the opportunity to do a little more than that. What else would be worth SERIOUSLY considering? A big light for the azo prints, maybe a vacuum frame. A UV thing for Pt/Pd? Help...

dgh

 

[Jorge]

1) yes, absolutely, 110% do it!....I just could not go back to printing in bathrooms or converted rooms.

2) what do you want to do? Azo, Pt/pd, other alt processes?....An UV pt/pd printing unit takes less space than an enlarger, so you can have both. In another side I would hang the 300 W bulb for your azo prints. A vacuum frame is ideal for contact prints, unless you are doing developing out processes, then it becomes a pain in the arse....With my Zone VI enlarger I have the option of putting an 8x10 head on it, so who knows I might do that, if you have this option look for higher ceilings. A viewing light table big enough to hold the 8x20 negs you want should be good too....

As far as being a big computer room with a sink, well that is up to you.....I know I will first learn to make plates than go the digital route.

 

[Donald Miller]

David,

I would not want to go back to doing my photography in bathrooms etc. unless I had to. But I have done it in the same way that you now do.

I echo what Jorge said about a committment to the photographic process(s) as they now exist. Normally, the thing that makes most sense is to separate your dry from your wet side in doing your darkroom layout. The dry side would obviously include your contact printing area, your enlarger, print and negative storage. It could also contain such things as your dry mounting press, matting and framing area. Although I would make the latter in a defined area. The wet side would be film and print developing area, washing sink, and print drying racks. A wall segregating these areas would be nice.

Good luck should you go forward.

 

[lee]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dnmilikan @ Feb 25 2003, 11:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> David,

I would not want to go back to doing my photography in bathrooms etc. unless I had to. But I have done it in the same way that you now do.

I echo what Jorge said about a committment to the photographic process(s) as they now exist. Normally, the thing that makes most sense is to separate your dry from your wet side in doing your darkroom layout. The dry side would obviously include your contact printing area, your enlarger, print and negative storage. It could also contain such things as your dry mounting press, matting and framing area. Although I would make the latter in a defined area. The wet side would be film and print developing area, washing sink, and print drying racks. A wall segregating these areas would be nice.

Good luck should you go forward. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I am in the process of building a darkroom in another building 12.5 miles from my house. The actual DARKROOM will be 13.6 feet square. Then there will be a wall and on the other side will be the finishing room. (mat cutter and dry mount presses and the storage areas. Right now we are in the process of trying to find a leak in the roof before we put sheetrock up on the ceiling again. Then there is the back wall that was wet (from the ceiling leak and a hole where an a/c unit was) and it needs insulation and sheetrock. We will probably move in on or about 4/1/03. There are 3 of us in the darkroom so that is why it is so big. If it was just me I would probably cut the space in 1/2 or a little more. We have 2 fiberglass 8' sinks and 2 archival washers and my Thomas safelite and 3 enlargers 2 dry mount presses. I am building an AZO area and installing a DBI safelight over the sink. Oh, one of the sinks has a temp control unit on it. We have 3 chillers and we think we have enough to make one good one. Since I am having to install a new water heater I have decided to get a 30 gallon shorty. I have 220 vac on the other side of the wall that can be dropped right there. I am installing an I/O switch so that it doesn't run when we don't need it. The majority of the year the tap water is warmer than 68f. Mostly we will depend on the chiller to regulate the water temp. So, big happening at Casa Carmichael with the darkrooms.

lee\c

 

[RAP]

Building a darkroom? Well, if Kodak just spent millions building a new plant for B&W film, and Fuji coming out with new B&W films to compete with Kodak, just as they did with Velvia, I would say yes, it is worth it. As to what to buy, I will leave it up to you. Just how many have had to use the kitchen at on time or another for a darkroom. I still have the 5 foot plastic sink I used to lay out over the stove and drain into the sink. The location has very little to do with the quality of work, so long as it is light tight. It is how careful you work that really counts. Still having a large room devoted to a darkroom is a definite convenience. Confuse hypo with suger?

The computer, scanner, digital is here to stay. But I doubt it wil replace the wet darkroom.

 

[Tom Duffy]

David,
You should consider your end product. An AZO print cannot be duplicated digitally, nor can platinum or even glossy fiber base.

Much of your work seems to be large format; it will be a long time before an affordable digital sensor will equal what you can do now in terms of resolution and accutance.

Last year, I finally got a sink in the same room as my enlarger, a world of convenience compared to using the ajoining bathroom!

Go for it!

Take care,
Tom

 

[blansky]

I built my darkroom in my garage. It takes up nearly half of the garage. (I can still get one SUV in comfortably.) I print mostly 16x20 and 20x24 prints. I run two enlargers, 21/4 and 5x7. I have a large sink I built out of 3/4 inch plywood and coated it with some kind of boat paint. I use 8, 20x24 at a time with five of them stacked so I can do dev, stop, fix1, fix2, and perma wash in the space width of one 20x24 tray. Then I have a syphon wash and a 20x24 print washer in the sink as well as the ability to tone and bleach at the same time. The wet side works great for me and the dry side of course is never big enough, but there is ample room. I also built in a 20x24 dry mount press under the sink.

For the enlargers I built a table with a top that can be lowered to the floor for very large enlargements.

So David, yes I agree build the darkroom and it will be a joy to work in, because it is a dedicated room and you don't have to start from scratch and set everything up every time you wish to work

Michael McBlane

 

[SteveGangi]

Go ahead and do it. Just keep the wet and dry parts of the room separate and put in a locking doorknob so nobody walks in while you are making the ONE good print off that impossible negative (which Murphy's Law says you will never ever get right again). I am using the bathroom, at night, and it sucks to put it mildly. Every time I want to do something I have to schlep all the chemicals back in, mix the right dilutions, set the trays out, hang black curtains, drag the enlarger or floodlamp in, and simultaneously try to keep the critters from getting in and drinking from the trays (while not breaking my own neck). Not fun at all. I doubt you ever have to worry about film going away, and even if it did, there are other places to get chemicals.

 

[Donald Miller]

Steve, I am sorry to hear about your struggles with the "critters". I had a cat once drank from the Pyro developer...darn, if that wasn't funny...a glow in the dark cat. Made a good nightlight, though, once I was able to catch her.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[David Hall]

Guys,

Now THIS is why I love this forum! I asked the same question on the DPUG group, and they just didn't see it the same way. They wondered what benefit it would be to have a great big sink next to the double-processor Mac G5 tower.

Seriously...

Like Steve, I currently have to schlep chemicals and trays and a small archival washer every single time I set up. I weigh out Amidol, sulfite, bifisulfite, bromide, etc on a small scale on the kitchen counter every time. I use pyro liquids in the kitchen because the spots turn green and are easy to clean, but I refuse to mix pyro powder on the kitchen counter, so I go to Per Volquartz's house down the street for that, as well as tray inspection developing. And, this is kind of funny, but the reason I have become such a dedicated Azo user isn't because of the wonders of the paper, but the fact that I don't have to enlarge it and it is so damn slow the neighboors' houselights don't fog it through the kitchen window! Don't get me wrong...even in the new room I would use nothing else for the 8x10 negatives, the stuff is SO good. I just got into it by necessity and not by art.

So if I do this, it will be in the back of the garage. I envision a space with a long plywood/boat painted sink, a deeper sink for the archival washer, my enlarger (Saunders dichroic 4x5, so it's pretty big) in a corner, and a long counter. I wonder about UV lighting but I have yet to do Pt/Pd and just don't know. I'd hate to put it in and never use it, and I'd hate to NOT put it in and then become a fan of the process. I also envision a space outside the darkroom with a counter for the drymount press and framing, both of which I do myself (by lugging stuff to the dining room table, as it is now).

You offer a lot of encouragement. I REALLY appreciate it. What a community we have here...

dgh

 

[Robert Kennedy]

I'd suggest spending some time looking at your water quality/temp and how to control it.

Where I live, the water is so hard that it is just one step below wet concrete. Nasty stuff photographically. I use distilled for most of my alt process stuff because of this. You may want to consider an R/O unit or a softener. Or just having it as an option (ie: do the plumbing so you can just plug one in). It sounds like you are happy with the tap water as it is now, but that can change. Here they switched water supplies and the water got much harder. Always good to have options, and the cost would be a couple of bucks to simply add the connectors.

Temp will be more important to you. Seriously consider plumbing something in for temp control. Even to the point of adding your own heating unit. Running off of the main hot water tank could be a problem if others in the house do something like take a shower or run the dishwasher.

Speaking of heating, also make sure the room you are using won't get too hot or too cold for you. We have one room in my house that is either too cold or too hot (usually the later considering where I live) unless we leave the door wide open. As far as I have been able to tell, this is simply due to the way the heating/cooling system works. Most homes seem to have one room like this. Since leaving the door open is not an option, make sure the room is comfortable. If it isn't figure out how to make it comfortable! You will be sinking some bucks into this, and there is no point in being uncomfortable in it!

Oh, and get the best fan you can. More fan than you think you need is probably the best way to go. I have heard more people say they wish they had gotten a better fan than anything else when it comes to darkrooms.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[SteveGangi]

Maybe I just worry too much, but when it comes to what things are harmless or deadly to the critters, I always assume the worst. I don't know if it was mentioned, but ventilation and a good exhaust fan would be important too. The fumes usually smell terrible, and I would not want to take a chance, given some of the warnings I've read about cyanide fumes, etc. Better safe than sorry. Even the harmless stuff stinks something awful.

 

[Donald Miller]

Steve,

I was just making light about my cat drinking pyro earlier. I love her and wouldn't want anything to go amiss because of something that could have been prevented. Besides, I think that my cat is smarter then me most days.

Come to think of it, maybe it was me that drank that stuff...it went somewhere...just here a minute ago...

 

[SteveGangi]

Actually, glow in the dark cats would be kind of cool

 

[docholliday]

David,

I have complete darkroom (and I have 6 computers in another room for my duties in the computer industry). Being in the computer industry for so long has gotten me too bored to sit in front of the boxes all day and pound away. I have a Mac (yes, only ONE...I hate Macs) in my darkroom for an MP3 player (and I have a database I wrote for it to catalog my negs and keep track of exposure data/darkroom data).

Other than that, my darkroom is set up for B&W RC, B&W Fiber, RA-4, P-30/R-3000, C-41, E-6 and has a bunch of roller-transport equipment in it. This is, of course, in a room of my house. To this day, I cannot stand the look of a digital print, whether off my color laser, dye-sub or a C print from any lab. I just think they look too...uh, digital.

So, I still print all my work through wet process. My commercial work goes to a lab, of course, but my personal work is done by hand.

My personal "forecast" for the future is that "consumer" film and minilabs will die the way CGA graphics did. Why? Because it is more "effective" for the consumer to shoot their 2-4MP digitals and print it on their desktop with PSLE or ULead PI with some Epson...and to a point, more controlable and cost-effective (at least in their mind). Then, "pro digital" will push into the photojournalism field and into the "quick stop and shot" portrait studios as well as bulk-production studios (school pics, Olan Mills type studios, commercial and advertising (look at the Sinar backs for product work!), etc). Which will make film-based work a "fine-art" specialist field.

Everybody will scramble to become digital, and as the "older folks" (I mean old-school here, not old-age) who are so good with film die off, people will begin to revert to the look of film (warmer, less pixelated, less of a Crayola palette, etc) and people will begin to look for "specialists" in film-based imaging. That is when those of us who "kept up the craft" will be in demand ($$$!!)

I surprise a lot of people when they ask me what cool digital I have since I've been working with Photoshop since version 2.5/3.0 and I do a lot of work in Adobe InDesign, Illustrator, Premiere and Macromedia Dreamweaver, Flash, and Shockwave. I tell them "I can't stand digital. I think it is so lifeless. To me it isn't photography..."photo + Grafos"="a writing of light". To me, digital is an electrograph (electro + grafos). "

They always say "you must have some digital camera!" Nope, I have a Betacam SP, LCD monitors, my Hassys, and soon to be, a new Wisner (hopefully, 4x10!)

My advice to many of my clients who ask me the question of "should I go digital?" is to learn digital, and keep up with it, but not to forget the root of where the principles originated (and keep up with them too).

Computers will get cheaper, trust me. You'll be able to buy a whole "digital studio" for around $1000.00 in a year or two. But, I feel that the "analogue darkroom" equipment will go up as it becomes some sort of cult function.

So, David, I'd say...buy yourself a good wet darkroom now (friends of mine at a camera shop are getting truckloads of "studios going digital", "home darkroom going digital", and "selling my _____ to get a new D1_" gear in. You can always "amend" the darkroom later when you feel that digital is the appropriate tool (and you can afford a good, non-consumer version) for what you need to do.

 

[docholliday]

BTW, look at how many "hacks" there are now in the wedding industry who are shooting 40-200 pictures with their K1000 and WalMart flashes, or with their ____ 4MP digitals & printing the pics on their inkjets, who are "competing" with the real wedding photographers for jobs. Sadder yet, look how many of them are actually getting jobs!

That tells me what the consumer is expecting in terms of quality. I think the consumers have been "herded" so much into the thinking that since their wally-world pictures from yesteryear match their digitals from their desktop, that what they're getting IS pro-grade work!

I learned weddings from a pro who worked many, many years. I took what I learned, and developed my own style, but with the same courtesy, professionalism, and skill that I learned from the "old-schooler". Then, between what I've seen lately and what one can read on Photo-net with the "I was told that my snapshots at my _____'s wedding were better than the Pro's, so I'm shooting one next week for $300 and I need to know what to do..." type questions, I feel that just like the computer industry, the photo industry is going to crash to some lowly-form of life.

In the computer industry, we get idiots who buy a $600.00 computer and expect her to live for 5+ years. Maybe if it was 1982. Not today. Then, they complain that their 19xx Gankway box won't cut video, but they installed a 1394 Firewire card in it and "'The' Windows is the newest I could find", but the video still skips, take 9 hours to compile, etc.

Oh, well, I'm feeling too much like a philosopher now...time to quit.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[David Hall]

Doc,

I love the passion. And I think you make a lot of sense. I keep trying to look for analogies in other media, since everything always seems to follow the same basic path. I think of BW filmstock, which probably followed exactly what you describe for analog/digital: it must have been VERY cheap when all the studios went color, yet I heard that when Schindler's List was made, the film was MUCH more expensive than color would have been. I think of film vs video in TV, which probably also went exactly as you describe photgraphy, except now you can spend thousands to get an Avid machine that makes your video look like film.

Off your main point...why do you have all the color stuff in that room of your house? Is it that you can do the work significantly better than a lab (film, not prints)?

And as for the Wisner...get the 8x10 and either crop or cut a darkslide. Then you get a bigger negative when you need one, and you have two formats with one camera without having to change a back.

Thank you again for the very well thought out response.

dgh

 

[SteveGangi]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Feb 27 2003, 12:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
First he would not let me bring my cameras near the wedding or reception, if I shot color. He had to inspect my film first. BUT I refused to pay him to shoot a digital camera and just print out the pictures. I inspected his equipment first. We argued long and hard about what he thought was the best pictures. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I would not have let the SOB inspect anything, or dictate what I am allowed to bring to my own kid's wedding. So long as he was getting paid what was agreed to, it's none of his damn business what you do. Like you I would have told him I want real photos, not digital printouts. There would have been no argument, either it's my way, or he is fired on the spot. Who the hell did he think he is????

 

[Robert Kennedy]

That is pretty typical from a significant portion of the "pro" wedding shooters out there.

I had the (mis?)fortune of attending a fairly large number of weddings recently, so I got to see a LOT of different shooters.

Now when I go to a wedding I bring a camera. What I do is shoot the moments the hired gun is missing. Then I get the best picture of the couple printed out by hand on high quality fibre at 11x16 or 8x10 (depending on negative size). I mount it up and frame it. Voila', a great wedding gift that looks great and is something they usually can't afford themselves (most people can't and won't fork out the big $$ for a large print from the pro....many don't even consider it).

Some shooters get REALLY mad at me. I had one guy who said he wasn't going to shoot the wedding if I didn't put my Bronica in the car. My take on this was "Well, I do have 20 rolls of film in my bag here....and I am available", but the B&G were stressed as it is, so I brought out my FT2. This guy was so clueless as to think that it could not match his 35mm Canon. Proved him wrong when all was done and said.

Then there are the ones shooting digital. Time and again I have seen my stuff come back well before theirs does. I don't mean a few days difference. I mean a couple of MONTHS usually. True, I don't have their workload, but a couple of months for proofs? Come on. I thought digital was supposed to be faster!

I think in the future we will see a return to film. Especially for things like weddings. Right now many people skimp on the photographer at weddings. The number of times I have been asked "Can YOU shoot it for us?" is innumberable. I did that ONCE. And it was a diaster. The B&G were quoted my cost. They agreed. Then they said "Well, $500.00 is too much, we can get this guy for $250.00." Despite pointing out this was COST for me (and an estimate), and that they agreed to this, they wanted me to shoot for LESS than $250.00. Well, I'd spent $200.00 on film, so this was not gonna happen. And I hate that kind of crap. So they ended up with the "Kodak Glossy Photo Paper" wedding pics from "Cletus the Photographer" with his Coolpix.

Now, which is gonna last longer, the inkjet prints, or the stuff I took and had printed on Crystal Archive?

My prediction is that all these people spending more money on flowers than on pictures will soon find that their "special moment" has faded. Literally! The impermanence of the mediums used will result in a lot of lost photos. The smart shooters, the ones who KNOW what they are doing and still use MF and a Stroboframe, will be able to sell their services based wholly on archival quality! If you mention to t he happy couple that these images will last "60-100 years so your grandkids can enjoy them", you will get a lot of response to that.

That alone will keep the film industry going. Add to that all the artists out there who will keep working with silver and you have a strong industry. Plus there are the nations where people don't have as much disposible income. They won't be moving to digital as quickly as everyone else. Hell, I have heard that in some nations guys still take tintypes for tourists!

Film is far from dead, far from dying. And the fact is those who KNOW how to use it will be sought out in the future.

 

[docholliday]

I'm not saying that film is *dying*, my vision is that for the *consumer*, they'll call it "dead". They'll go for the digital since "they can do just as good as the pro's/studios on their inkjet" or something (I've heard it already at some conferences). Just like now, the computer industry isn't "dying". Just the interest and educational aspects in it. With all the hack's who "graduated from the top of their class at _______ school (some community college)" and are taking jobs for 8.00 an hour that the experienced people wouldn't think of it, the industry is becoming a "generic" market. I think that's a better term. And of course, more hacks...

I'm saying that film will become that "generic" market, with further spreads between film and digital users. Hell, Comdex, the largest convention for the computer industry went bankrupt a few months ago! But, CES (*Consumer* electronics show) is still around...

Look at B&W now, may people are charging something like 30-50% MORE to do it because they list it in their literature as *speciality* work. Huh?

It used to be (in the computer industry) that consumer and pro users were fairly close together in equipment quality, software, etc. And the only "hacks" were the Shareware people. Now, it's more like a tennis court, spread between two worlds with a large, definitive line/net in between. The problem today is that one side is somebody whose only played tennis with a computer and you've got Andre Aggasi on the other side! "But, I've won the *hardest* level on my game!...I'm just as good." People expect the $600.00 computer to be able to do the same work as a $2000.00 box. Wrong. Doesn't work that way.

So, what I'm saying is that the consumer out there will get frustrated with their 35mm P&S (or Canon Elan somethings) because their pictures "didn't look as good as some pro's" and "I must(!) know why, this camera is just good as theirs". Of course, not understanding that it's not the camera's fault (well, it kinda is somewhat) but rather it's their fault for being non-educated on the subject. So what do they do? They go and get a digital. And Photoshop (or some crippleware image editor) and edit the hell outta their image. Then, they'll print it out and hang it on the wall (direct framing not matted..."uh, why is the picture stuck to the glass?") and tell the whole family that their image is better than some pro who spent years, much money, and mucho headaches learning the process.

What has happened is just as in *many* industries...instead of the consumer being better educated on what they are doing wrong, they are getting dumber and dumber because the devices they use are doing it for them ("I got this camera with 2 zillion point autofocus and 9 trillion programs..." (look at Nikon with their "image database that matches the exposure to the scene" in the F100) without them understanding the concepts. This, of course, leads them to think that they're getting better (falsely) and makes life for the rest of us living hell.
/**------------------------
David, I have all the color equip somewhat because I can do it faster than a lab (not for production prints, but rather for custom work). Plus, I get to keep honing my skills in color, so when they do screw up or something, I can communicate with them better. There has been quite a few times where the lab printed an image (quite well) for what the operator saw, but I had seen the image differently and felt that the image had more feeling differently. So, I did a guide proof of it in my lab and sent it to the pro lab. They corrected the images for what I saw and were far less b*tchy when I called them and told them "I was including a guide print". I use one of the larger labs in the country and they are all great people. (It's kinda like doing every job as a competition job, with guide printing and all, it's easier for the lab to *see* what you want rather than having to *mentally envision* what you want) And, sometimes, I'll do my negs up for C-41 (an hour after the shoot) and contact sheet. Then, I'll pre-crop the images and send them to the lab for finals. It cuts down from having to wait for the proofs to come back on time critical, "need it in a week" jobs without the rush pricing!

/*------------------------------------
/*------------------------------------

I guess this whole thing ties into the discussion at hand (on building a REAL darkroom) because I'm saying that before you go digital for any reason, understand the concepts of real photography behind it first. (Look at how many people use Photoshop, but don't understand why the "dodge" and the "burn" tool work like they do! Or, "what's a mask?" When the day digital becomes the "common" thing, you'll understand better! I just see it as a change in the tool, just like the change from seeing handtools in a garage to seeing air or electric tools...people are still using both, but the *consumer* tool-time-man will have every pneumatic, hydraulic, and electric tool in his arsenal, yet won't have a clue when his Milwaukee 6HP ____ won't fit into the space to cut something. (I have a ""friend"" who is this stupid...owns almost every Mac tool, but can't use half of them to save his ass)

 

[blansky]

Robert

We are getting off track here, but as someone who shot a few hundred weddings in a previous life, the fact of another camera intruding on the wedding coverage is very annoying. I don't want to get into a discussion of your rights to shoot at a friends wedding but the following is a few reasons that it is distracting.

1. It is my living, and you giving or selling prints cuts into it.

2. I want the B&G and family to pay attention to me. If they are looking around at other photographers when I'm posing or shooting, the picture quality suffers considerably.

3. At the church amateurs will step in front of me while I'm trying to shoot. Shots that can't be redone.

4.Time is precious and if they are posing for you, you are stealing valuable time.

5. The B&G saw my work previously and that is why I was hired. They already know the prices and the quality. An amateur getting in the way and undercutting is hurting my business.

I'm sure that whatever you occupation is, you would not be impressed with someone coming in and hurting your work product or disrupting your work.

Anyway, just another point of view.

Thankfully I paid my penance and have not shot weddings for years.

Michael McBlane

 

[docholliday]

BTW, Aggie, I'd love to come out sometime and join all the LF's out there! (I shot an 11x14 for a while and a SpeedGraphic and had an 8x10 Deardorf...) I just didn't have the time to dedicate to all the LF work and I got into color printing and Cibachrome about then...

Let me know on what day ya'll decide (I live in Indiana in case ya'll didn't know...) Hopefully, this software project I'm on now will be near completion by then...