is the shot worth the effort?

winger · Feb 15, 2018

All of my Mordançage and lith prints in the media section are scanned from the print and most of the regular ones are, too. FWIW, if I'd scanned the neg of the Burrell building before trying to do a lith print, I would never have even put it in the enlarger. I scanned it yesterday because the scanner was already on and I was curious - I can get detail in the scan, but it's obvious that the camera moved during the exposure and I likely would have rejected it based on that. In the lith print, that doesn't matter. I do sometimes scan negs to see them larger than a contact sheet to decide which to print, but I do not print by inkjet as that would waste more time than just making a quick RC print. I'm reasonably proficient at Photoshop, but I'm better in the darkroom. And happier.

jtk · Feb 15, 2018

" I can get detail in the scan, but it's obvious that the camera moved during the exposure and I likely would have rejected it based on that. In the lith print, that doesn't matter."

Not only is a reasonably good scanner sharper than any enlarging lens... the camera movement you see in your file may be fixable in the file as well, and not only by simple sharpening.

Just fyi. I admire your Burrell "media" image and suspect it stimulates as many serious photo viewers as a "proper" full negative enlargement would.

jim10219 · Feb 15, 2018

Where are you guys getting your inkjet ink? It costs me over $1,000 to replace the ink in my printer! I'd say it's anything but cheap!

But I do get the basic gist of it all. I will often scan negatives into my computer first before attempting anything further. That allows me to quickly play with the negatives and see if there's anything worth pursuing further in the darkroom. Only, I do it all on the computer screen. I dare not waste my precious ink or paper on contact sheets.

That being said, there's little value in an inkjet print. Anyone can make one. So they're a lot harder to sell, and don't pull in anywhere near the money of a wet print. And they will never appreciate in value due to their ability to be endlessly reproduced with exact precision. People don't want to spend a bunch of money on something they can make themselves with a few clicks of the mouse. But a darkroom print is like a piece of black magic. Most people don't understand how they're made. A lot of people I talk to don't even realize that people can still make them! They think the supplies and technology disappeared in the 90's! A wet print is a work of art. Good art, bad art, it all depends. But it's art. It showcases the toil of the human who made it. An inkjet print is a decoration. It beautifies a wall. And they are both valued accordingly. They both have their place. I enjoy making both. But they are not equal, despite their similarities.

Ko.Fe. · Feb 15, 2018

TheRook said:
By simply looking at a negative, oftentimes it is difficult to determine if or exactly where dodging/burning will be required. A test print gives so much more insight... even a lowly inkjet print will do.

If you are scanner, yes. But I'm printer. After determining by looking at the negative if it is worth of the print I drop it under enlarger and once lamp is turned on, it is visible on the easel - what to burn, what to dodge. And I'm not the one who does it strait with single print. I could do ten working prints from same negative.

Ko.Fe. · Feb 15, 2018

jim10219 said:
Where are you guys getting your inkjet ink? It costs me over $1,000 to replace the ink in my printer! I'd say it's anything but cheap!

...

No idea why it costs this high for you either. I guess you are printing posters for sale. But I'm using Epson grade inks sold on Amazon for very reasonable price. Works for bw and color pigment inks prints for non-commercial use. No issues with simple, no color calibration use. If I don't like colors on the print, I adjust them for my taste and re-print.

winger · Feb 15, 2018

jtk said:
the camera movement you see in your file may be fixable in the file as well,

LOL, nope, not a chance. I should post it in hybrid 'cause it's kinda cool, too, in its way. But the only way to fix it in post is to draw it by hand. I'm guessing the shutter was open for a full second or so. I also shot the same building with my 4x5 that day and I think it was around f32 @1/15 on Delta100. It was HP5+ in the Holga.

faberryman · Feb 15, 2018

jim10219 said:
Where are you guys getting your inkjet ink? It costs me over $1,000 to replace the ink in my printer! I'd say it's anything but cheap!

Before switching to Cone inks, I bought ink for my Epson 3880 at B&H for $59 a cartridge.

jtk · Feb 15, 2018

faberryman said:
Before switching to Cone inks, I bought ink for my Epson 3880 at B&H for $59 a cartridge.

I get mine directly from Canon...same sort of price as B&H ... with my now-dead (clog) Epson 3800 I bought from Inkjetart.com or Itsupplies.com (cheapest source anywhere in US I think)

jim10219 · Feb 15, 2018

faberryman said:
Before switching to Cone inks, I bought ink for my Epson 3880 at B&H for $59 a cartridge.

My P9000 costs $140 a cartridge at B&H. With 11 cartridges that's $1,540 for ink alone, not including maintenance tanks and other repair costs from general wear and tear. Sure, I can get a bunch of prints out of that. But it's still not cheap in cost per print.

Ko.Fe. said:
No idea why it costs this high for you either. I guess you are printing posters for sale. But I'm using Epson grade inks sold on Amazon for very reasonable price. Works for bw and color pigment inks prints for non-commercial use. No issues with simple, no color calibration use. If I don't like colors on the print, I adjust them for my taste and re-print.

By the way, you can buy a used eye1 for under $100 and download some free software for it. That way you can calibrate your monitor AND printer. Then you'll never have to waste paper or ink making test prints and get much better results much more quickly. Saving time and money while producing a better product? What's not to like?!

Gerald C Koch · Feb 15, 2018

pentaxuser said:
jtk, the unsaid premise that underlies your post is that darkroom work is not cost effective, either in terms of time or cost in comparison with scanning. You may well be right but my assumption is that on this analogue section of Photrio people here do darkroom prints for their own sake i.e. they enjoy the process for its own sake.

pentaxuser

+1

Which is also why I don't both with test sheets. The images are too small to judge whether to make a larger print.

Patrick Robert James · Feb 15, 2018

This thread from what I can tell is just the OP trying to convince himself that switching to digital printing is a great idea. Lol.

Not fond of the negative dis about the quality of images in the media section either.

As someone who posts in the media section and apparently is incompetent, I would love the OP to show us his work so I know what mine should look like. Probably never gonna happen....

blockend · Feb 15, 2018

I gave up inkjet printing after neither of my Canon printers lasted more than a month. The big guys have the volume and capacity, which translates into quality and price. If you print every negative as in former times it would cost a fortune in ink alone.

Sirius Glass · Feb 15, 2018

I too gave up on inkjet printing because it blew through the cartridges which were expensive and the prints did not compete with darkroom prints.

jtk · Feb 15, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
I too gave up on inkjet printing because it blew through the cartridges which were expensive and the prints did not compete with darkroom prints.

I'm certain that many inkjet printer users could whup your best darkroom prints, if in fact you still make them.

Sirius Glass · Feb 15, 2018

jtk said:
I'm certain that many inkjet printer users could whup your best darkroom prints, if in fact you still make them.

Not on my printer. I got a Chromega Dichroic II 5D-XL and lenses for less than the good Canon printers and I am enjoying darkroom work more than would be using Fauxto$hop.

jtk · Feb 15, 2018

blockend said:

I gave up inkjet printing after neither of my Canon printers lasted more than a month. The big guys have the volume and capacity, which translates into quality and price. If you print every negative as in former times it would cost a fortune in ink alone.

Click to expand...

If one is as impoverished I agree that the poor-man's best alternative is an enlarger...in some publically funded darkroom.

I don't know who "the big guys" are. Is your resentment targeted at "middle class" retirees like me? I use a Pro 10, used two eras of Epsons earlier, 2200 and 3800, was very satisfied with all of them quality-wise. Certainly they resolved better detail than any enlarging lens could, except perhaps with point light source...which I've used but found not very versatile.

jtk · Feb 15, 2018

Patrick Robert James said:

This thread from what I can tell is just the OP trying to convince himself that switching to digital printing is a great idea. Lol.

Not fond of the negative dis about the quality of images in the media section either.

As someone who posts in the media section and apparently is incompetent, I would love the OP to show us his work so I know what mine should look like. Probably never gonna happen....

Click to expand...

Your resentment isn't my concern. I didn't complain about "quality" on media section, I tried to point out redundancy...often rocks/water/trees etc. A little of that is great, a lot gets..... And I didn't suggest anybody is "incompetent." A little honesty does wonders, try it.

I'm not "trying to convince myself" as I've been printing inkjet for about a decade.

jtk · Feb 15, 2018

Gerald C Koch said:
+1

Which is also why I don't both with test sheets. The images are too small to judge whether to make a larger print.

What's "too small" for you? Letter sized tests are fine for me with my normal goal of 13X19.

faberryman · Feb 15, 2018

blockend said:
I gave up inkjet printing after neither of my Canon printers lasted more than a month. The big guys have the volume and capacity, which translates into quality and price. If you print every negative as in former times it would cost a fortune in ink alone.

Which Canon printers were you using?

Craig75 · Feb 15, 2018

MattKing said:
The computer is the greatest time waster I know of.
It must be hard finding a plug for your computer under that bridge.
Off to report myself to the moderators.

This. OP has gone fishing and snagged a few.

jtk · Feb 15, 2018

jim10219 said:
Where are you guys getting your inkjet ink? It costs me over $1,000 to replace the ink in my printer! I'd say it's anything but cheap!

But I do get the basic gist of it all. I will often scan negatives into my computer first before attempting anything further. That allows me to quickly play with the negatives and see if there's anything worth pursuing further in the darkroom. Only, I do it all on the computer screen. I dare not waste my precious ink or paper on contact sheets.

That being said, there's little value in an inkjet print. Anyone can make one. So they're a lot harder to sell, and don't pull in anywhere near the money of a wet print. And they will never appreciate in value due to their ability to be endlessly reproduced with exact precision. People don't want to spend a bunch of money on something they can make themselves with a few clicks of the mouse. But a darkroom print is like a piece of black magic. Most people don't understand how they're made. A lot of people I talk to don't even realize that people can still make them! They think the supplies and technology disappeared in the 90's! A wet print is a work of art. Good art, bad art, it all depends. But it's art. It showcases the toil of the human who made it. An inkjet print is a decoration. It beautifies a wall. And they are both valued accordingly. They both have their place. I enjoy making both. But they are not equal, despite their similarities.

I don't make "contact sheets" ... there's little reason to do that with digital files.

You could be right to "do it all on the computer screen" I suppose...but I prefer to look at test prints, which I don't consider as "precious" as you apparently do. Maybe I'm wasteful. Or maybe I just like to review test prints in a wide variety of lighting conditions (studio, kitchen, open door, tungsten etc) before making final prints. I've noticed that "screen" originating prints have issues in less than perfect lighting conditions...I can solve that with test prints.

wyofilm · Feb 15, 2018

Craig75 said:
This. OP has gone fishing and snagged a few.

+1

eddie · Feb 15, 2018

jtk said:
Investing time and materials in the dark sometimes leads to over-appreciating mediocre images (reflected in my decades of darkroom prints, and judging from Photrio "media").

I'd point out that investing deeply in the newest technologies can also lead to over-appreciating mediocre images, often simply to justify the cost.

There may be some "mediocre" (to you) images posted, but there are also some fantastic images being shared by talented, dedicated, passionate photographers. Some of the best work I've seen, since joining, has been here, rather than galleries, art festivals, or other sources. I have a few by members hanging on my walls, and look forward to having others work hanging someday. You paint with a broad (and biased) brush...

blockend · Feb 16, 2018

faberryman said:
Which Canon printers were you using?

I've no idea, they were returned before I got to know them. They were purchased on a quick appraisal, and when I returned the second one I looked more closely at the feedback, which said avoid like the plague. Which I have. I still have a spare set of unused inks because neither machine came close to exhausting the inks that came with them.

blockend · Feb 16, 2018

jtk said:
If one is as impoverished I agree that the poor-man's best alternative is an enlarger...in some publically funded darkroom.

I don't know who "the big guys" are. Is your resentment targeted at "middle class" retirees like me? I use a Pro 10, used two eras of Epsons earlier, 2200 and 3800, was very satisfied with all of them quality-wise. Certainly they resolved better detail than any enlarging lens could, except perhaps with point light source...which I've used but found not very versatile.

What on earth are you talking about? On what planet is a silver, platinum, or lith print inferior to an inkjet one? My point was simply if you want a hard copy of a large percentage of your output, as was generally the case in film days before lingering death on a hard drive became the norm, big businesses are set up for such volumes. I pay 50p for a 12 x 8" colour ink jet print, and a few pence for a 6 x 4, which fulfil my requirements for mass printing.

FWIW I have my own darkroom and have worked in them for love and money for four decades. If I want a drum scan, a large fine print from a digital source, a dye transfer print, an out-sided chromogenic print, I take the source to the appropriate professionals who I've worked with for years. My requirement for high quality giclee/ink prints doesn't justify investing in the gear. I don't have the volume of digital images that deserve printing big on a regular basis. I assume you have your own pit and computer diagnostic equipment to service your car?

is the shot worth the effort?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency