is the shot worth the effort?

[jtk]

Inkjet printing allows me to cheaply knock off a test print from a scan or camera file, investing just a few moments in preliminary adjustment of density, contrast, tone etc. That let's me confirm if I want to work more seriously on it.

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").

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Personally I prefer take shots which are more less clearly visible if I want scan or enlarge them. Just by looking at negative.
If worthiness of the shot is determined by density, contrast, tone and else technicalities it is mediocre shot indeed. All of it is actually visible on the negative once you gain enough negatives and prints.

 

[Helinophoto]

Inkjet printing allows me to cheaply knock off a test print from a scan or camera file, investing just a few moments in preliminary adjustment of density, contrast, tone etc. That let's me confirm if I want to work more seriously on it.

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").

Heh, I don't even do that.....inkjet actually cost a whole bunch of money, the ink is more expensive than the finest beer.

I scan all, only print the ones I actually like myself.....which explains my low output.
I don't necessarily take all bad shots, I'm just extremely critical to my own work.......so to print something means it ends up on my wall....

I do print stuff now and then that needs work though, to practice my crappy darkroom-skills. And a few rare time, just to print, but for 2017, I printed 2 photos in total

 

[jtk]

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

This is "mixed workflow" section,not "analogue."

 

[jtk]

Not necessarily. That depends on the worker. Also, contact sheets don't take a lot of time or materials. They can be useful.

Nothing wrong with scanning/inkjet-printing for the purposes of image selection if that's the way you prefer doing it.

Note that I said "sometimes."

 

[jtk]

Heh, I don't even do that.....inkjet actually cost a whole bunch of money, the ink is more expensive than the finest beer.

I scan all, only print the ones I actually like myself.....which explains my low output.
I don't necessarily take all bad shots, I'm just extremely critical to my own work.......so to print something means it ends up on my wall....

I do print stuff now and then that needs work though, to practice my crappy darkroom-skills. And a few rare time, just to print, but for 2017, I printed 2 photos in total

With my OP post I assumed good darkroom skills... and more than several photos per year. YMMV.

I'm an excellent darkroom technician... I've photographed, processed, and printed since cc 1951 as a very young child...but most importantly I'm a photographer, like many here... my photography is now about 25% film and all of that is printed inkjet (and sometimes proofed even more conveniently by office laser).

 

[Chan Tran]

If your original is a negative then I would certainly want to print it in the darkroom. I wouldn't want to make paper negative from a digital file to print it in the darkroom though.

 

[jtk]

If your original is a negative then I would certainly want to print it in the darkroom. I wouldn't want to make paper negative from a digital file to print it in the darkroom though.

Film or digital camera, everything I shoot (and everything from my archives) gets printed via Canon Pro10 using OEM pigments. Primary paper size is 13X19 or letter size, depending on purpose.

 

[jtk]

Most of the stuff in the Media section isn't even darkroom-printed.

Yep.

 

[TheRook]

Personally I prefer take shots which are more less clearly visible if I want scan or enlarge them. Just by looking at negative.
If worthiness of the shot is determined by density, contrast, tone and else technicalities it is mediocre shot indeed. All of it is actually visible on the negative once you gain enough negatives and prints.

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

This is "mixed workflow" section,not "analogue."

This is an interesting point. What is the definition of "mixed workflow"? I thought this was the hybrid section or is it the case that the film part of the hybrid process is here so the "hybriders" post what they believe to be their film processing problems here and then take their problems with scanning and printing from those scans to the hybrid section? There has to be reason why we still have separate analogue and hybrid sections, doesn't there?

The question posed looks like a scanning v darkroom printing pros and cons in terms of cost and time aspects. Is this a topic that is astride two horses at once - a difficult one to categorise maybe

pentaxuser.

 

[Ces1um]

Inkjet printing allows me to cheaply knock off a test print from a scan or camera file, investing just a few moments in preliminary adjustment of density, contrast, tone etc. That let's me confirm if I want to work more seriously on it.
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 don't do my own printing anymore. If I was to start printing again though, I would imagine that since I'm quite lazy at heart I would only choose my best images to print. To clarify, I think I'd know if the image was worth the effort to print it before I'd spend an ounce of effort on it, because if it wasn't I'd never drive to the darkroom to print it! I'm trying to take that philosophy one step forward and really ask myself, "Do I even want this photo to begin with?'. I'm trying to put the camera down rather than taking the photograph, if that photograph won't be worth it in the end. That's been a much trickier habit to develop though and I haven't been entirely successful.

 

[removed account4]

often times the shot wasn't even worth scanning and ink printing ..
those are even rare ...

 

[Ian Grant]

You're trying to make an argument that's irrelevant. Why bother to make an Inkjet print you should know from a contact print or the scan whether the image is worth printing regardless of it being an inkjet print or a darkroom print. You're adding a step that's not needed.

With experience you learn to read negatives, that gives me far more information than a contact sheet.

Ian

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

You would have scan the negative first before printing on an inkjet. While it's difficult to see if the negative is worth printing just by looking at it. Scan and look on the computer screen would tell me if the negative is worth printing. I would then make the print in the darkroom.

 

[Arklatexian]

Inkjet printing allows me to cheaply knock off a test print from a scan or camera file, investing just a few moments in preliminary adjustment of density, contrast, tone etc. That let's me confirm if I want to work more seriously on it.

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").

Couldn't you say that about all of amateur photography? If you don't enjoy it, why not find something else to do. Raising tropical fish is fun and enjoyable to many people......Regards!

 

[Craig75]

Quite the fishing trip

 

[Arklatexian]

Inkjet printing allows me to cheaply knock off a test print from a scan or camera file, investing just a few moments in preliminary adjustment of density, contrast, tone etc. That let's me confirm if I want to work more seriously on it.

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 suggest that you read or better yet watch some of Fred Picker's discs/tapes concerning the "Proper Proof" where he explains that it will show you far more than what you shot , such as proper film speed, proper processing of the film and paper, whether you are having shutter problems, etc. all in one. We are talking about B&W aren't we?...........Regards!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I found that ink for inkjets is expensive. I would rather make a print and see what a print would really look like.

 

[Luckless]

I take the view that every step along the way is an "Evaluation of Potential" - Before picking up a camera, is there something that might be worth the image? Before pressing the shutter, am I happy with what I'm seeing currently? After developing the film/loading the file, are things still looking like I'm happy with?

But an important thing in my mind is having the willingness to let an image go - If I go out with the idea to take a photo, but don't actually find anything that resonates for a photo, then I don't force a photo out of the outing. If I'm not seeing potential in a negative, then I give it a pass and focus on working with others.

Stashing a print away after its finished and coming back to it a month or so later allows the excitement to die off a bit, and lets me be more objective about its value. One of the worst traps to fall into is the "I worked hard for this, therefore it is good"... And this seems especially true when it comes to film use. "I put effort and money into this shot, therefore is MUST be good..." but the truth is there is often far less value to an image than we initially want to assign to it.

I figure if I have more than a handful of shots that I think are really and truly good at any given time, then I'm not pushing myself nearly enough.

 

[faberryman]

Inkjet printing allows me to cheaply knock off a test print from a scan or camera file, investing just a few moments in preliminary adjustment of density, contrast, tone etc. That let's me confirm if I want to work more seriously on it.

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").

Whatever works for you. You are the one you have to satisfy. Is there a question here, or just a statement?

 

[removed account4]

Most of the stuff in the Media section isn't even darkroom-printed.

right, actually, none of it is ... 'specially chromes and reversals &c
that said, some people realized even if they have a darkroom print
it is easier to scan a negative than deal with
tonal reproductions in a darkroom print or dealing
with a large print on a small scanner-bed and stitching
probably, in most cases most everything originates
on film or paper .. except for the images with a big D next to them
which most of the population ignores ...

the funny thing is most people think it is easy to make great ink jet
or light jet prints, or easier than printing in the darkroom, so they poo poo it all ..
but it is the opposite .. ive got wicked respect for people that can make thngs look grea
no matter how the print is made ...

 

[jtk]

I suggest that you read or better yet watch some of Fred Picker's discs/tapes concerning the "Proper Proof" where he explains that it will show you far more than what you shot , such as proper film speed, proper processing of the film and paper, whether you are having shutter problems, etc. all in one. We are talking about B&W aren't we?...........Regards!

Certainly, we're not all "talking about B&W". That's my main concern, however...and with digital camera files I always begin with color (like our eyes do), even for B&W. It's bad practice to convert to B&W in-camera because that loses most information and eliminates the potential of playing with the file by adjusting color before converting to B&W (with PS). I come from a Minor White/zone system and professional studio background...therefore Picker wasn't relevant.

By the way, I am/was a good wet darkroom color printer as well as B&W... I don't have any color-Vs-B&W axe to grind and in fact have recently been enjoying B&W renditions of old color negs and transparencies..

 

[blockend]

Efficiency vs output vs cost vs pleasure. Make sure your best work makes it to print and all the good stuff is easily viewable and tagged/captioned. How you get to that point is about time and expense.
Ideally. a fine technician making dye transfer prints of all your work, pragmatically, shoot jpegs on a phone and post to Instagram. Most of us are somewhere in between.