Maybe It's Time

[eddie]

Right.

With inkjet prints being so superior, I wonder why I cherish my darkroom prints, yet couldn't give two stuffs about the ones that the computer spits out?

Probably because you enjoy the hand-crafted nature of darkroom printing, as well as the intimate, tactile relationship it requires.

 

[removed account4]

Probably because you enjoy the hand-crafted nature of darkroom printing, as well as the intimate, tactile relationship it requires.

not to mention the fun-factor .. definately more fun to do darkroom work

 

[eddie]

not to mention the fun-factor ..

That’s the real point. Regardless of which image making method you choose, the one you’re most likely to excel at is the one which excites you the most.

 

[removed account4]

That’s the real point. Regardless of which image making method you choose, the one you’re most likely to excel at is the one which excites you the most.

yup

 

[TheRook]

A lot of crying and pissing in the beer! No wonder they say that the beer tastes bitter. Films come and go. If you are lucky you can stock your freezer. If not, then move to another film. Getting angry at a film manufacturer and boycotting the company is senseless, self defeating and self destructive.

I agree.
Apparently Acros has not been selling well for quite some time. Not enough people were buying Acros to make it profitable enough for Fujifilm to continue producing it. That's the usual reason for film discontinuations. Rather than blaming the manufacturer, the lack of popular demand is the real culprit.

 

[FujiLove]

"Giclee" is only a marketing term, like bragging about brand of silver paper when describing a silver print...which nobody does, right?
And yes, most "serious" B&W photographers print inkjet these days. Why not? Tonal range is longer, detail resolution is higher. More paper options. Good inkjet (top Epson & Canon) only lags behind platinum. Next time you're in civilization, visit a few photo galleries. I do. What? No photo galleries in your town?

Sorry, this is another off-topic post, but I was pondering the costs this morning. To go down the scanning/inkjet route would roughly cost the following:

1. Medium format scanner to resolve at the grain level: £2000+
2. High quality A3 printer such as an Epson P600: £500
3. Photoshop subscription over an estimated 5 year life of the scanner and printer: £600

This assumes the photographer already has a suitable computer, colour corrected monitor, software, leads etc.

Total digital setup cost = £3100+

My Durst 6x7 enlarger, lenses, negative carriers, safe light, calibration kit, Kodak viewing filters, grain focuser etc. cost £80 off eBay.
My 4 slot heated Nova tank and 2 slot print washer were £200 off eBay
I've bought other bits and pieces that add up to less than £100, and I probably spent £40 in petrol to pick up the gear.

Total 'analogue' setup cost = less than £500

I know I did well with the enlarger, but I'm sure anyone could put together what I have for way less than £1000. And my enlarger and tanks are already 20+ years old and work like the day they were made. The digital equipment will not last that long.

The last time I compared consumable costs, my RA4 prints cost between a third and half that of inkjet prints (depending on the paper used), so there's a big cost saving if, like me, you like to print big and print a lot.

 

[klownshed]

Hobbies will consume as much money as you are willing to throw at them.

I have all the equipment I need to do the whole process from start to finish traditionally or digitally and everything in between. I could easily make a cost comparison biased towards either traditional or digital photography. Trying to justify one over the other on the basis of cost is a futile exercise.

I am equally happy and at home with any combination of traditional and digital photography and enjoy it all. Sometimes I enjoy the process more than the end result, at other times I enjoy whatever process I need to get an end result with which I'm satisfied (at which point the process is inconsequential).

I enjoy printing in the darkroom. But the only person the process matters to is me. Nobody else looking at any of my prints gives a fig how it was made. Most 'normal' people don't give you extra points for making life difficult for yourself by using film and printing in the dark. If you are lucky, or good, or a combination of the two you might also have a good photo to show for it all too.

There are more choices available than ever for photographers. We are free to use any methods we like, including combining film and digital in any way we see fit. It's all good. It's all interesting. Some methods will be better for some than others, but to criticise anybody else's choice for how they pursue their hobby is pointless and often churlish.

 

[bunip]

Macodirect.de have it again readily available at regular price. Today I received my order of 120 film from them (390 rolls acros, 75 velvia, 75 provia, 25 ektar 100 and 25 portra 160), quite impressive... and almost 3K euros...
now I'm done for a while.

 

[removed account4]

LOL

Then our friend jananian got incoherently prolix and implied that there was something wrong with commercial photography.

jnanian thinks me "abrasive" but considers it fine to make absurd negative comments about inkjet prints and people who make and enjoy them.
And somehow thinks alt printing ( I'm sure I'd admire his if it existed off line, tho I comment positively on his digital version in Media) is superior to the work of commercial photographers...
such as Ansel Adams and Irving Penn were...you can learn a lot from the body of their work.

yes ... abrasive

what i wrote was able to be UNDELETED and here it is:

<<i think one has to know what the word serious means in this context. the person who wrote the statement
talks alot about commerical photographers not silver print or alt process print makers .. so the shoe fits
no clue what serious buyers are buying, exceot for 2 extremes, extremely large ( 40x60, 8footx6foot &c ) or
really small ... and then there is in book form. one of the last infiniti award winners makes books now, not prints in a gallery..>>

as noted i said nothing negative about commercial photographers or people who use ink,
and if you want to "admire" my work, follow my sig-link and purchase a 40x60 ink on canvas panel, i must be "serious"

please do not make up any more BS claims and attribute them to me
as jorge used to say " welcome to my ignore list "

 

[FujiLove]

Macodirect.de have it again readily available at regular price. Today I received my order of 120 film from them (390 rolls acros, 75 velvia, 75 provia, 25 ektar 100 and 25 portra 160), quite impressive... and almost 3K euros...
now I'm done for a while.

1. I'd be dead before I shot all that.

and,

2. I do hope they sent you a really big bag of Haribo

 

[warden]

Macodirect.de have it again readily available at regular price. Today I received my order of 120 film from them (390 rolls acros, 75 velvia, 75 provia, 25 ektar 100 and 25 portra 160), quite impressive... and almost 3K euros...
now I'm done for a while.

In the states you can still get 35mm Acros at Freestyle for those interested.

 

[jtk]

Sorry, this is another off-topic post, but I was pondering the costs this morning. To go down the scanning/inkjet route would roughly cost the following:

1. Medium format scanner to resolve at the grain level: £2000+
2. High quality A3 printer such as an Epson P600: £500
3. Photoshop subscription over an estimated 5 year life of the scanner and printer: £600

This assumes the photographer already has a suitable computer, colour corrected monitor, software, leads etc.

Total digital setup cost = £3100+

My Durst 6x7 enlarger, lenses, negative carriers, safe light, calibration kit, Kodak viewing filters, grain focuser etc. cost £80 off eBay.
My 4 slot heated Nova tank and 2 slot print washer were £200 off eBay
I've bought other bits and pieces that add up to less than £100, and I probably spent £40 in petrol to pick up the gear.

Total 'analogue' setup cost = less than £500

I know I did well with the enlarger, but I'm sure anyone could put together what I have for way less than £1000. And my enlarger and tanks are already 20+ years old and work like the day they were made. The digital equipment will not last that long.

The last time I compared consumable costs, my RA4 prints cost between a third and half that of inkjet prints (depending on the paper used), so there's a big cost saving if, like me, you like to print big and print a lot.

You're right on all counts financially, assuming longterm cheapness is one's #1 goal. However, you have missed the biggest virtue of scanning/inkjet (other than its higher detail resolution and ability to better render shadow and highlight detail).

The biggest virtue has to do with immediacy and subtlety of myriad alternative results: not only can you see what that negative is readily capable of, you can see a nearly infinite number of ways that negative can be rendered.

Within any one perhaps-favorite way of seeing the potential in that negative, you can see (most easily with Silver Efex) another infinity of subtleties.

My longtime favorite enlarger has been a Durst 609. Fabulous condensers.

 

[jtk]

Hobbies will consume as much money as you are willing to throw at them.

I have all the equipment I need to do the whole process from start to finish traditionally or digitally and everything in between. I could easily make a cost comparison biased towards either traditional or digital photography. Trying to justify one over the other on the basis of cost is a futile exercise.

I am equally happy and at home with any combination of traditional and digital photography and enjoy it all. Sometimes I enjoy the process more than the end result, at other times I enjoy whatever process I need to get an end result with which I'm satisfied (at which point the process is inconsequential).

I enjoy printing in the darkroom. But the only person the process matters to is me. Nobody else looking at any of my prints gives a fig how it was made. Most 'normal' people don't give you extra points for making life difficult for yourself by using film and printing in the dark. If you are lucky, or good, or a combination of the two you might also have a good photo to show for it all too.

There are more choices available than ever for photographers. We are free to use any methods we like, including combining film and digital in any way we see fit. It's all good. It's all interesting. Some methods will be better for some than others, but to criticise anybody else's choice for how they pursue their hobby is pointless and often churlish.

Right on all counts.

yes ... abrasive

what i wrote was able to be UNDELETED and here it is:

<<i think one has to know what the word serious means in this context. the person who wrote the statement
talks alot about commerical photographers not silver print or alt process print makers .. so the shoe fits
no clue what serious buyers are buying, exceot for 2 extremes, extremely large ( 40x60, 8footx6foot &c ) or
really small ... and then there is in book form. one of the last infiniti award winners makes books now, not prints in a gallery..>>

as noted i said nothing negative about commercial photographers or people who use ink,
and if you want to "admire" my work, follow my sig-link and purchase a 40x60 ink on canvas panel, i must be "serious"

please do not make up any more BS claims and attribute them to me
as jorge used to say " welcome to my ignore list "

I urge everybody to visit jnanians work and my own in "Media" and to think about what you see. My guess is that you'll recognize unique artistry in jananian's. fwiw you'll find that I've made positive comments about much of what he's posted. I don't see any reason for defensiveness.

 

[Ste_S]

Sorry, this is another off-topic post, but I was pondering the costs this morning. To go down the scanning/inkjet route would roughly cost the following:

1. Medium format scanner to resolve at the grain level: £2000+
2. High quality A3 printer such as an Epson P600: £500
3. Photoshop subscription over an estimated 5 year life of the scanner and printer: £600

This assumes the photographer already has a suitable computer, colour corrected monitor, software, leads etc.

Total digital setup cost = £3100+

My Durst 6x7 enlarger, lenses, negative carriers, safe light, calibration kit, Kodak viewing filters, grain focuser etc. cost £80 off eBay.
My 4 slot heated Nova tank and 2 slot print washer were £200 off eBay
I've bought other bits and pieces that add up to less than £100, and I probably spent £40 in petrol to pick up the gear.

Total 'analogue' setup cost = less than £500

I know I did well with the enlarger, but I'm sure anyone could put together what I have for way less than £1000. And my enlarger and tanks are already 20+ years old and work like the day they were made. The digital equipment will not last that long.

The last time I compared consumable costs, my RA4 prints cost between a third and half that of inkjet prints (depending on the paper used), so there's a big cost saving if, like me, you like to print big and print a lot.

I think that's particularly harsh on the cost of ink jet printing.
I'm amazed at the quality of cheap ink jet printers now. I recently bought a Canon TS5051 for £50 and I'm more than happy with the quality of A4 prints I get out of it for hanging on my wall.

 

[jtk]

I think that's particularly harsh on the cost of ink jet printing.
I'm amazed at the quality of cheap ink jet printers now. I recently bought a Canon TS5051 for £50 and I'm more than happy with the quality of A4 prints I get out of it for hanging on my wall.

fwiw, my Canon Pro-10 cost considerably more than £500 and I rely on Nikon's 35mm scanner. It's probably impossible to rival the Nikon with any flatbed, but my old Epson 3200 approaches that with Betterscanning.com adjustable focus negative carrier...does a fine job up to around 11X14. Again, fwiw, Ilford and literally dozens of inkjet paper manufacturers and types (including Japanese washi) are readily available, most a lot less expensive than silver paper, for obvious reasons..

 

[removed account4]

I don't see any reason for defensiveness.

no, not defensive, just re-posted exactly what i wrote
seeing you made-up ßu||∫hi†3, insisted i said it, and called me a liar.
please keep me out of your posts, agenda, comments, commentary.
i do not need or want your "help" in any way shape or form.

 

[faberryman]

Sorry, this is another off-topic post, but I was pondering the costs this morning. To go down the scanning/inkjet route would roughly cost the following:

1. Medium format scanner to resolve at the grain level: £2000+
2. High quality A3 printer such as an Epson P600: £500
3. Photoshop subscription over an estimated 5 year life of the scanner and printer: £600

This assumes the photographer already has a suitable computer, colour corrected monitor, software, leads etc.

Total digital setup cost = £3100+

My Durst 6x7 enlarger, lenses, negative carriers, safe light, calibration kit, Kodak viewing filters, grain focuser etc. cost £80 off eBay.
My 4 slot heated Nova tank and 2 slot print washer were £200 off eBay
I've bought other bits and pieces that add up to less than £100, and I probably spent £40 in petrol to pick up the gear.

Total 'analogue' setup cost = less than £500

I know I did well with the enlarger, but I'm sure anyone could put together what I have for way less than £1000. And my enlarger and tanks are already 20+ years old and work like the day they were made. The digital equipment will not last that long.

The last time I compared consumable costs, my RA4 prints cost between a third and half that of inkjet prints (depending on the paper used), so there's a big cost saving if, like me, you like to print big and print a lot.

I am constantly surprised at the number of posts like this concerning the cheapest film, the cheapest developer, the cheapest paper, finding cheap equipment on eBay or even in the trash, digital being cheaper than film, film being cheaper than digital, cheap, cheaper, cheapest. It appears to be an obsession and an end in itself.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I still prefer darkroom prints, but nobody else in my large family...

I can't do RA4 (is this color?) prints. I'm only capable of BW darkroom prints. New 8x10 50 sheets of RC is much more expensive than in store 50 sheets of double weight inkjet Letter sized paper. Like three times more.
Inkjet inks are not expensive at all, once you find trusted online store. And you could modify your printer for inks in bottles, if you need printing every day and a lot. Those are not expensive inks as well.

No idea why you need this expensive scanner. I have big prints made from 165CAD Epson v500 scanner. More than enough of resolution for large prints.

Can't comment on A3 printer. Do you print this large, this often? Darkroom color prints? I'm not. My Letter sized inkjet is 100CAD new. I print several times per week for second year now. Then I need A3 large it cost little from big box stores for color prints or it costs reasonable from local camera shop printing expert at close to my darkroom print quality (for BW).

Photoshop? What for? I use version four standalone Lightroom. It does it all and it works.
I think, Lightroom is still available as standalone and not expensive.

With my recent inkjet printer I never printed, gifted, made albums this much in decades...
It takes about ten minutes to print in color and much less in BW. And it is actually BW with deep blacks and bright white.

Sorry, this is another off-topic post, but I was pondering the costs this morning. To go down the scanning/inkjet route would roughly cost the following:

1. Medium format scanner to resolve at the grain level: £2000+
2. High quality A3 printer such as an Epson P600: £500
3. Photoshop subscription over an estimated 5 year life of the scanner and printer: £600

This assumes the photographer already has a suitable computer, colour corrected monitor, software, leads etc.

Total digital setup cost = £3100+

My Durst 6x7 enlarger, lenses, negative carriers, safe light, calibration kit, Kodak viewing filters, grain focuser etc. cost £80 off eBay.
My 4 slot heated Nova tank and 2 slot print washer were £200 off eBay
I've bought other bits and pieces that add up to less than £100, and I probably spent £40 in petrol to pick up the gear.

Total 'analogue' setup cost = less than £500

I know I did well with the enlarger, but I'm sure anyone could put together what I have for way less than £1000. And my enlarger and tanks are already 20+ years old and work like the day they were made. The digital equipment will not last that long.

The last time I compared consumable costs, my RA4 prints cost between a third and half that of inkjet prints (depending on the paper used), so there's a big cost saving if, like me, you like to print big and print a lot.

 

[FujiLove]

You're right on all counts financially, assuming longterm cheapness is one's #1 goal. However, you have missed the biggest virtue of scanning/inkjet (other than its higher detail resolution and ability to better render shadow and highlight detail).

The biggest virtue has to do with immediacy and subtlety of myriad alternative results: not only can you see what that negative is readily capable of, you can see a nearly infinite number of ways that negative can be rendered.

Within any one perhaps-favorite way of seeing the potential in that negative, you can see (most easily with Silver Efex) another infinity of subtleties.

My longtime favorite enlarger has been a Durst 609. Fabulous condensers.

The endless choice of filters, settings, contrast, HDR sliders etc etc etc were one of the mains reasons I completely switched to shooting film and wet printing. I have three inkjet prints hung on the wall behind me as I write this, all created using Silver Efex. They took hours to create and I must have gone though twenty iterations for each one. Looking at them today, they look over-processed and somehow as though they are trying too hard. For me, too much choice is a pain in the neck and ends up looking and feeling fake. I realise this is just because of my skills and personality. I produce better images when I’m limited. One camera, one lens, one film etc.

I understand why people are drawn to inkjet printing though, particularly for colour photos. RA4 is quite limiting in its options now there are few papers available.

 

[peter k.]

Here is an interesting similar situation, posted this last Sunday, that we have come across and refer to it here. Some of you may well be aware of this, and have viewed it, but for others who have not we refer to it here again. Well worth viewing. About an:
"Oregon photographer Christopher Burkett is best known for producing large-format film prints of American landscapes, some of the highest resolution color photographs ever created without computer technology. But he only has a limited supply of the materials, which have been discontinued, making his current work a race against time."
using a stash of Cibachrome-a, paper that is running out, and who states he will be done with photography when it does.

From original post, this last Sunday:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...apher-races-to-finish-decades-of-work.159057/
or .. direct from PBS..

 

[pentaxuser]

If only Cibachrome can match inkjet and there is a major group here who believe that inkjet B&W exceeds the range what can be done with silver gelatin darkroom paper maybe the more pertinent thread is now: "Analogue Darkroom in Peril" and not "Acros in Peril"

pentaxuser

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
There are more choices available than ever for photographers. We are free to use any methods we like, including combining film and digital in any way we see fit. It's all good. It's all interesting. Some methods will be better for some than others, but to criticise anybody else's choice for how they pursue their hobby is pointless and often churlish.

Thank you. These are wise words which, if heeded, could bring an end to the divisiveness that appears here.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I understand why people are drawn to inkjet printing though, particularly for colour photos. RA4 is quite limiting in its options now there are few papers available.

Let's have a closer look at this.
Giclée printing provides for a greater variety in choices of media and a wider colour space than RA-4 and rather than just 3 or 4 papers, I can choose more than 30!
It is quite a chore to select ... "just one"...

Colour RA-4 materials are abundant too in many, many finishes and weights (probably varies by market) — I have 8 or 9 types of media to select from. The gold standard approaching Ilfochrome Classic visual quality is FujiFlex CLAB super gloss; virtually the same deep, penetrating colour and the familiar niggling surface frailty as Ilfochrome Classic raw prints (e.g. gloves on, no bending or crimping).

I wouldn't be the OP calling time on photography when there is still such a wide variety of films and printing technologies on offer. Of course, not all of these are suitable for, or affordable by, amateur photographers, but if you want to showcase your work with the very best printing, don't talk about doing it cheaply. No, nothing is cheap!!

 

[FujiLove]

And yes, most "serious" B&W photographers print inkjet these days.

Isn't that because practically everyone uses digital cameras these days, therefore they have little choice but to use inkjet printers, or similar?

Why not? Tonal range is longer, detail resolution is higher. More paper options. Good inkjet (top Epson & Canon) only lags behind platinum.

Do you have evidence for these claims? I'm not asking this to suggest you're wrong - I have no idea one way or the other. I'd just be interested in seeing the evidence, how the tests were carried out and which pieces of equipment and materials they used to compare the two.

I did a comparison of my own a couple of years ago with a 35mm frame of Ektar 100. One wet printed on Fuji Crystal Archive and the other scanned with my Pakon 135+ and printed with a ten year old Epson inkjet. Both were roughly 10"x8". The results were very similar, but the inkjet was more saturated and displayed higher contrast. The wet print was a bit more subtle and showed a touch more detail, but not so much that it was noticeable when viewing the mounted prints from 3 feet away.

 

[removed account4]

maybe it is time, but a different time...
i think we are in sort of a golden era to be honest. lots of different methods available, really anything
someone can think of can be done, even with a cellphone snappy. smalls enlarged with a scanner
sure 2nd gen but thats ok .. then output it to bob carnie's lab and a 20x60 tricolor gum over or PT PD printmafe
or lushious inkprint or straight silver or even a translucent 17th century 3d printed tile..
not to mention the possibilities with film cameras/ straight silver to gravures ..
its really the sky and one's own creativity that are the limits these days/ and while it sux films and papers are being discontinued
seemingly every year or 6months who knows maybe there will be the equiv of a plug in bread machine / emulsion sprayer for flm/paper &c
made through kickstarter &c down the road so one just needs to buy the silver, bromide iodide gelatin &c, and
as ron popile the who invented spray on hair and the in the egg egg scrambler would say ... set it and forget it .. 5 hours later
self coated film / paper ...