Probably because you enjoy the hand-crafted nature of darkroom printing, as well as the intimate, tactile relationship it requires.
Probably because you enjoy the hand-crafted nature of darkroom printing, as well as the intimate, tactile relationship it requires.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?
not to mention the fun-factor .. definately more fun to do darkroom workProbably because you enjoy the hand-crafted nature of darkroom printing, as well as the intimate, tactile relationship it requires.
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.not to mention the fun-factor ..
yupThat’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.
I agree.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.
"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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 "
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.
I don't see any reason for defensiveness.
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.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.
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.
...
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?