Printing in the Darkroom

[Sirius Glass]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I did not ask that.

Sorry, I had meant to quote to OP and not you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Omaha - how do you know an inkjet print will last two hundred years if those particular inks or papers have only been on the market for two
years? (Rounding the factor, but you get the drift). That's just plain snake oil marketing. Nobody legit would make those kinds of claims. They
can do tests to show certain improvements A versus B; but extrapolating those kind of accelerated aging into so many years of this or that is utter BS at this point in time. There are far too many variables involved. Lots than less than ideal colorants go into inkjet inks. The priority with
the colorants is that they have to get thru those tiny inkjets to begin with, which inherently restricts most true pigments. So it's a pretty complex subject.

 

[BetterSense]

for teh lulz

 

[pdeeh]

Ilford believe their RC papers are as archival as FB, and RC hasn't been around long enough to verify that ... if we tend to believe Ilford about such things, why be so cynical about a different manufacturer and their technology? Because it's "digital" and therefore some sort of con-trick?

 

[darkosaric]

It is easier to scan the negs

Easier way is often tempting, and people get lazy. Not just in this example, in life in general. People like to go in easy way: 15 min exercise to perfect body, super fast reading and you read book in 15 min, learn foreign language in 15 min ... The truth is: you get what you put into.

 

[omaha]

Omaha - how do you know an inkjet print will last two hundred years if those particular inks or papers have only been on the market for two
years? (Rounding the factor, but you get the drift).

Personally? I don't.

At the same time, there is nothing superficially unreasonable about the representation that it will, so I have no reason to doubt the published specifications.

Edit: I should add: Outside of the ink delivery system (which in and of itself has nothing to do with the longevity of the resulting print....you could paint the inks on with a brush and you would get the same result), there is nothing particularly novel about any of this. The paper base is not a new technology. The coating on the paper is not a new technology. Pigment based ink itself is not a new technology.

Of course, there is always the chance that some unforeseen interaction could cause a problem in (say) 50 or 100 years.

As things stand, serious people with serious money and serious responsibilities are using this system for serious work. Dead Link Removed, for example, lists the relevant Vivera system at ">230 years".

Could they be wrong? I suppose. But they know more about this stuff than I do, and they have no commercial interest in the result. That's good enough for me.

 

[Xmas]

For the OP - it may be magic spell number 27 ie watching the image appear under a safe light...

Not the same as the inkjet picture, [noise effect]

 

[tkamiya]

what does everyone do with what they print?

What advantages do most people find for darkroom printing?

I don't have any grandiose purpose for my photography. I'm not out to preserve the history. It's my hobby. It's my passion. It's what I'd like to do. So I do it in a way that pleases me and enjoy - process, product, research, and all the rest. It partially comes from the fact that all of my past hobby turned into a money making venture or a profession in one shape or another. In a process, I lost my hobby. So, for photography, I am determined to not make it into a profession - something that I'll do other than for pure pleasure and just because I want to. For the record, I do both film and digital. I like them both. I think each had advantages and disadvantages. So I choose the method that pleases me.

I put some of my work on my walls. I give some away. Other than one time, I exhibited and someone actually bought it (I really didn't think anyone would, so I was very surprised), I try not to get any money involved.

I find darkroom printing more of a relaxing process. (well... most of the time....) More like meditation. Expose.... dodge, dodge, burn, burn.... dev.... swish, swish, swish.... stop.... swish..... fix..... rock, rock, rock..... then light comes on....

My profession is IT, so sometimes digital photography look too much like work.

 

[winger]

There is nothing in the world quite like seeing a print appear as if by magic in the tray of developer.

This is a huge part of it. Even 30 years after the first time.
The first response you got sums it up for me, too.

 

[Bill Burk]

... there is a different look and feel to a silver gelatin print and that is the reason I work in a darkroom. If one does not care about the look and feel of a silver gelatin print, then that is their own decision...

This is one thing that drives me into the darkroom for printing. Even a Postcard Print I made the other day from a 35mm negative stirred some deep emotions in me. I was thrilled by virtue of even the small print's unique look... Real continuous tone. I care for the look and feel of a silver gelatin print.

So I know what you mean Sirius Glass...

 

[GloriB]

I don't have any grandiose purpose for my photography. I'm not out to preserve the history. It's my hobby. It's my passion. It's what I'd like to do. So I do it in a way that pleases me and enjoy - process, product, research, and all the rest. It partially comes from the fact that all of my past hobby turned into a money making venture or a profession in one shape or another. In a process, I lost my hobby. So, for photography, I am determined to not make it into a profession - something that I'll do other than for pure pleasure and just because I want to. For the record, I do both film and digital. I like them both. I think each had advantages and disadvantages. So I choose the method that pleases me.

I put some of my work on my walls. I give some away. Other than one time, I exhibited and someone actually bought it (I really didn't think anyone would, so I was very surprised), I try not to get any money involved.

I find darkroom printing more of a relaxing process. (well... most of the time....) More like meditation. Expose.... dodge, dodge, burn, burn.... dev.... swish, swish, swish.... stop.... swish..... fix..... rock, rock, rock..... then light comes on....

My profession is IT, so sometimes digital photography look too much like work.

Thank you!

 

[Bill Burk]

I don't have any grandiose purpose for my photography. I'm not out to preserve the history. It's my hobby. It's my passion. It's what I'd like to do. So I do it in a way that pleases me and enjoy - process, product, research, and all the rest. It partially comes from the fact that all of my past hobby turned into a money making venture or a profession in one shape or another. In a process, I lost my hobby. So, for photography, I am determined to not make it into a profession - something that I'll do other than for pure pleasure and just because I want to. For the record, I do both film and digital. I like them both. I think each had advantages and disadvantages. So I choose the method that pleases me.

I put some of my work on my walls. I give some away. Other than one time, I exhibited and someone actually bought it (I really didn't think anyone would, so I was very surprised), I try not to get any money involved.

I find darkroom printing more of a relaxing process. (well... most of the time....) More like meditation. Expose.... dodge, dodge, burn, burn.... dev.... swish, swish, swish.... stop.... swish..... fix..... rock, rock, rock..... then light comes on....

My profession is IT, so sometimes digital photography look too much like work.

I'm not DETERMINED to not make money at it... But I am doing a real good job PROVING it's not a money-making venture. Meanwhile I count my blessings. I don't have to be a slave to a popular print - because there is not one. I can still print anything I want.

tkamiya, you inspire me with your determination... stories you've told of multiple prints to get one right... leave me awestruck, and I am sure others are similarly impacted.

 

[ic-racer]

I'm wondering is what does everyone do with what they print?

You mean other than looking at them? I guess I don't know any other purpose.

 

[edcculus]

I maintain color managed inkjet proofing systems for a living (well at least part of my living). The last thing I want to do is have to do all that at my house as well.

Scanning may be the easier part, but IMO, home darkroom printing is much easier (and MUCH cheaper) than setting up maintaining a properly calibrated capture to print system (camera, scanning, monitor, and inkjet printing).

The darkroom is somewhere you can go to actualize the full intent of your vision that you put on film. You get a physical end result. How many of those scanned negs have you actually had printed and hung? Thats where the digital trap comes in. Even with scanning. You end up with all of these files, but nobody ever prints them. They get stuck on a hard drive, with unknown obsoletion and unknown storage life. Completely different topic, but I've started making a point of getting photo books printed of a bunch of my "best" digital pictures (mostly family stuff). Then I trash all of the files.

 

[nworth]

I do both digital and analog photography. Lately, most of my photographs have been digital, mostly because of the convenience. But I have some real issues with digital. The most important is the impermanence. It is very easy for a computer error to completely destroy a digital image, and the ever shifting interface and media standards could easily make the digital files unreadable. A negative is much more reliable. Digital quality is improving, and good digital cameras now give images roughly equivalent to 645 negatives. This is quite sufficient for just about everything, but bigger negatives do give better images. This is sometimes very important. Even with the excellent quality of digital images, I still shoot 35 mm black and white. I just like the look of what I get on film better than the digital image, even if it is not quite as sharp. I usually scan my film. If nothing else, the cataloging features of Lightroom make it much easier to find the images I may want to print. I haven't printed color in a few years. Since I got a truly professional level inkjet printer, the quality of the inkjet prints I can produce is such that I prefer this method. The ease of use of Photoshop and the control I can get with that program make it my choice. My printer uses four black and gray inks, and it is capable of very good black and white prints. I sometimes make them. It's the only way I can get black and white from a digital image, and it is a fast way to make a print from a scanned negative. But I generally prefer the darkroom for black and white. My darkroom prints may lack the punch of some of my digital prints, but I much prefer their subtlety and rendition. Digital prints look different than darkroom prints, whether color or black and white. The differences sometimes are important for different purposes or expressions.

 

[BetterSense]

Some things are better than sex, some things are worse, but nothing is exactly like it.

W.C. Fields

 

[MattKing]

I actually like having the ability to scan as well as print optically. Digital distribution is very different, but really useful.

So I think it is great to be able to do both!

 

[ic-racer]

Does this thread have anything to do with a Darkroom? Maybe it could be moved to the 'Silver print hater's forum'

 

[Sirius Glass]

I started on the scan and digitally print path, but that stopped after quickly needing to buy yet another set of ink cartridges. Darkroom printing is definitely cheaper and a lot more fun.

 

[Hatchetman]

Some things are better than sex.........

I'm having a tough time here.....nachos?