Sharpness Revisited - a JOBO Rotary Process Saga (pt2)

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 13, 2014

Glad you found something that works, Stone. Do your thing, make lots of photographs, and have a good time.

Yesterday I pulled out some prints that I had printed in silver in my darkroom, and a friend had printed for me where I had scanned the same 35mm Acros/Xtol negative on a middle-of-the-road Epson V700, sent him the scan and he made a copper plate gravure from it. Hands down the gravure is ten times more beautiful. I spent a lot of time with the print in the darkroom, adjusting minute tonalities and then touching it up with Spot One dyes to make it perfect (it's a portrait of my deceased grandmother and in her last days I really wanted her to look her best).

It's all about skill at what you do, which probably shows that my friend is a better craftsman than I am.

eddie · Mar 13, 2014

Glad you found a combination which works for you. Now, stick with it and concentrate on making more (and better) photographs.
If you're ever in the DC area, my offer to get you into the darkroom, for wet printing, still stands.

StoneNYC · Mar 13, 2014

didjiman said:
That's pretty draconian policy. The only film I use regularly is for 4x5 so LFF and various FB groups cover that already. I only visit because of StoneNYC's entertaining threads XD, and I will not contribute fund to the site with this sort of policy.

Thanks . Hah!

They are all a bunch of delusional pseudo-Luddites.

Cary on...

StoneNYC · Mar 13, 2014

eddie said:
Glad you found a combination which works for you. Now, stick with it and concentrate on making more (and better) photographs.
If you're ever in the DC area, my offer to get you into the darkroom, for wet printing, still stands.

Thanks

erikg said:
Pedantic? Isn't that what the 'P' in APUG stands for?

+1

Roger Cole said:
Give him a break. We all know what he means. People are just being annoyingly pedantic about it.

+1

markbarendt said:
The point I'm making is that the idea of a "straight scan" can only be applied "locally" (i.e at Stone's place) not globally (i.e at Stone's place and Mark's place and jnanian's place and Thomas's place and the local mini-lab).

Same scanner and same software would scan the same scan in the same holders

A print ... The old fashioned way, is LESS telling because you control everything and it's never the same way, 'your' prints are often WAY more manipulated than my scans because you probably do all kind of dodging and burning and you choose a paper grade and bla bla bla all of that changes the outcome and is a manipulation in itself, so that is "wizardry" in the darkroom. Either way your statement should apply MORE to darkroom printing than scanning, because scanning has the ability to be universal, wet printing is all a matter of personal adjustments. I CAN adjust my scans, but I don't have to if I don't want to and can easily scan a baseline.

removed account4 · Mar 13, 2014

StoneNYC said:
A print ... The old fashioned way, is LESS telling because you control everything and it's never the same way, 'your' prints are often WAY more manipulated than my scans because you probably do all kind of dodging and burning and you choose a paper grade and bla bla bla all of that changes the outcome and is a manipulation in itself, so that is "wizardry" in the darkroom. Either way your statement should apply MORE to darkroom printing than scanning, because scanning has the ability to be universal, wet printing is all a matter of personal adjustments. I CAN adjust my scans, but I don't have to if I don't want to and can easily scan a baseline.

hi stone
not to get philosophical on you but yea you are right
darkroom work allows the printer to excessively manipulate
a negative, as does a camera. method of processing, chemistry &c ..
there really isnt much of a difference between the two end results
modern can look great, traditional can look like crap, and visa versa ..
i guess what pisses a lot of people off is that by using modern technology you
are side stepping / bypassing a skill set they worked ( and still are working )
at mastering .. and the sidestep has made their skill set irrelevant ..
enjoy whatever it is you want to do, the photo world is changing by leaps and bounds
even as we post to this thread ( calumet closing american stores )
so in the end your methods may be more relevant than those who
dont like modern methods ...

sorry to be a stone in your shoe ..

StoneNYC · Mar 13, 2014

jnanian said:
hi stone
not to get philosophical on you but yea you are right
darkroom work allows the printer to excessively manipulate
a negative, as does a camera. method of processing, chemistry &c ..
there really isnt much of a difference between the two end results
modern can look great, traditional can look like crap, and visa versa ..
i guess what pisses a lot of people off is that by using modern technology you
are side stepping / bypassing a skill set they worked ( and still are working )
at mastering .. and the sidestep has made their skill set irrelevant ..
enjoy whatever it is you want to do, the photo world is changing by leaps and bounds
even as we post to this thread ( calumet closing american stores )
so in the end your methods may be more relevant than those who
dont like modern methods ...

sorry to be a stone in your shoe ..

Good point on the relevancy factor, and skillset, so it's not that they think it's not good enough (or they may) but more about how they are subconsciously upset that their skillset that was difficult could be so easily produced with out those skills.

That makes a lot of sense and I could see being sore about it.

But that's really true of all digital vs analogue, at least I'm learning half of it. And perhaps in the end I will learn the full skillset. Only time will tell...

However I would say, that scanning as a way to deduce issues is more accurate and repeatable, because the factors are all the same, same light output, same optical path, the temperature doesn't affect it, etc.

I would guess that many of those who don't like scanners and put them down, have never mastered the skills to use a good scanner properly. Heck I wouldn't claim to be a master scanner, just an average one. There is a skillset in that procedure as well.

Anyway I'm just happy I found something that works!

Now into testing Acros100...

ic-racer · Mar 13, 2014

Nothing wrong with scanners, digital enlargers and lambda printers, but in the past (and I'm sure it will continue in the future also) people have falsely presented inkjet prints and other faux artifacts of hipster culture as darkroom-made silver prints.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 13, 2014

There is one thing about darkroom printing that is amazingly consistent, Stone, and that is the contact sheet.

I make them, because I'm not that great at reading negatives. When I lay the negatives on the photo paper, inside a contact printing frame, I give exactly the same exposure every time, at exactly the same contrast filtration, and I develop the same photo paper in the same developer, at the same temperature, for the same amount of time, every single time.

That is the unmanipulated truth about my negatives, and they give me a very quick indication of how my negative exposure and processing is going, how I need to adjust, how consistent I am, and which negatives I should bother looking closer at.

Then, my own little hybrid version of working kicks in, where I make test scans of the negatives I think are going to work, just to see that it's sharp and doesn't have any physical damage (for whatever reason), before I take it to the darkroom.

Then I print, and when I do I tweak the hell out of the prints, because at this stage the process is no longer a standard process, it is an expressive process, where I add and subtract tone where I think it works, at different contrast grades, I diffuse and flash the paper if needed, and make a couple of iterations before I write the final print map down and make a final version.
Of course then I will tone the prints in various toners too.

So you are right that both digital work flow from film and darkroom work flow from film are manipulative. In the digital domain some gets added automatically (unless you know how to turn it off), and in the darkroom it gets added by the printer. But there is a portion of the process that is highly standardized, just to make sure that I keep within a certain workable range. There are variables that I don't want to affect the final result too much, and then there are variables that I want to be able to adjust as much as possible in order to make the prints the way I like them.

But, sorry to be drifting the topic here... I just wanted to give my view. Your process is fine with me, and as mentioned earlier, it really is all about how good you are at using your tools that matters. And having a good time, of course.

StoneNYC · Mar 13, 2014

ic-racer said:
Nothing wrong with scanners, digital enlargers and lambda printers, but in the past (and I'm sure it will continue in the future also) people have falsely presented inkjet prints and other faux artifacts of hipster culture as darkroom-made silver prints.

Are there any decent lambda printers available for normal budget folks?

If I learn to darkroom print I will still want to print my transparencies as I do now, with a lambda/lightjet but I send it out, someday it would be nice to do it in my future darkroom I think.

StoneNYC · Mar 13, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
There is one thing about darkroom printing that is amazingly consistent, Stone, and that is the contact sheet.

I make them, because I'm not that great at reading negatives. When I lay the negatives on the photo paper, inside a contact printing frame, I give exactly the same exposure every time, at exactly the same contrast filtration, and I develop the same photo paper in the same developer, at the same temperature, for the same amount of time, every single time.

That is the unmanipulated truth about my negatives, and they give me a very quick indication of how my negative exposure and processing is going, how I need to adjust, how consistent I am, and which negatives I should bother looking closer at.

Then, my own little hybrid version of working kicks in, where I make test scans of the negatives I think are going to work, just to see that it's sharp and doesn't have any physical damage (for whatever reason), before I take it to the darkroom.

Then I print, and when I do I tweak the hell out of the prints, because at this stage the process is no longer a standard process, it is an expressive process, where I add and subtract tone where I think it works, at different contrast grades, I diffuse and flash the paper if needed, and make a couple of iterations before I write the final print map down and make a final version.
Of course then I will tone the prints in various toners too.

So you are right that both digital work flow from film and darkroom work flow from film are manipulative. In the digital domain some gets added automatically (unless you know how to turn it off), and in the darkroom it gets added by the printer. But there is a portion of the process that is highly standardized, just to make sure that I keep within a certain workable range. There are variables that I don't want to affect the final result too much, and then there are variables that I want to be able to adjust as much as possible in order to make the prints the way I like them.

But, sorry to be drifting the topic here... I just wanted to give my view. Your process is fine with me, and as mentioned earlier, it really is all about how good you are at using your tools that matters. And having a good time, of course.

Good info, thank you, I value this post.

ic-racer · Mar 13, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Are there any decent lambda printers available for normal budget folks?

Of course not, but that is why they invented the "Free Craig's List Enlarger"

StoneNYC · Mar 13, 2014

ic-racer said:
Of course not, but that is why they invented the "Free Craig's List Enlarger"

Yup, but unless you've got a free stash of well stored cibi paper and chems... That enlarger does me no good! (I have a 4x5 enlarger already just in storage). Though the way I'm going, I might need an 8x10 (or at that scale is it a 10x10?) enlarger

I just figure eventually like all of this equipment, most of the printer companies will go completely digital and at that point they will get rid of their lightjet-lambda printers for dirt cheap prices (I hope) I'm sure the lightjet brand is cheap, I'm told it's a terrible technology compared to Lambda and so maybe they are out there?

Dinesh · Mar 13, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Yup, but unless you've got a free stash of well stored cibi paper and chems... That enlarger does me no good! (I have a 4x5 enlarger already just in storage). Though the way I'm going, I might need an 8x10 (or at that scale is it a 10x10?) enlarger

I just figure eventually like all of this equipment, most of the printer companies will go completely digital and at that point they will get rid of their lightjet-lambda printers for dirt cheap prices (I hope) I'm sure the lightjet brand is cheap, I'm told it's a terrible technology compared to Lambda and so maybe they are out there?

Lambdas are very large units that are somewhat cost prohibitive for the single user to install and maintain.

Richard Man · Mar 13, 2014

If you step outside of the purity for a moment that the A in APUG stands for and look at photograph making as an art and craft, then it doesn't matter whether one makes a Salt Print, or a Platinum, or Silver Gelatin, or gasp, scanning and then print digitally. Some people would prefer certain look and certain characteristics over the others. There is no one "best way." However, to do any of these techniques well, then one must master it. No one does anything exactly the same, but it's the result that matters.

markbarendt · Mar 13, 2014

didjiman said:
If you step outside of the purity for a moment that the A in APUG stands for and look at photograph making as an art and craft, then it doesn't matter whether one makes a Salt Print, or a Platinum, or Silver Gelatin, or gasp, scanning and then print digitally. Some people would prefer certain look and certain characteristics over the others. There is no one "best way." However, to do any of these techniques well, then one must master it. No one does anything exactly the same, but it's the result that matters.

I absolutely agree. The medium one chooses to work in is a purely personal choice.

Mastery is interesting, the input requirements change with each line of output; a Salt Print, or a Platinum, or Silver Gelatin, or Carbon, or scanning and printing digitally. To really get the best from each of these outputs it takes a different line of thought and practice from start to finish. A great negative for Ilford MGIV might not be so hot for carbon.

Richard Man · Mar 14, 2014

markbarendt said:
Mastery is interesting, the input requirements change with each line of output; a Salt Print, or a Platinum, or Silver Gelatin, or Carbon, or scanning and printing digitally. To really get the best from each of these outputs it takes a different line of thought and practice from start to finish. A great negative for Ilford MGIV might not be so hot for carbon.

Absolutely agreed. I am pretty OK with scanning and printing digitally after doing it for 10 years, but I know my skills will only transfer minimally to a darkroom. Of course I started in darkroom with the enlarger in the bathroom type of deal in high school living in the family's apartment in NYC.... And the tonal characteristics of the output vary so much that you can't just shoot and expose "properly" and expect to get a great print using Salt and then also a Silver gelatin, but then also carbon etc. (Of course I know you know all these, this is for the future edification purpose...)

ic-racer · Mar 14, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Yup, but unless you've got a free stash of well stored cibi paper and chems... That enlarger does me no good! (I have a 4x5 enlarger already just in storage). Though the way I'm going, I might need an 8x10 (or at that scale is it a 10x10?) enlarger

I just figure eventually like all of this equipment, most of the printer companies will go completely digital and at that point they will get rid of their lightjet-lambda printers for dirt cheap prices (I hope) I'm sure the lightjet brand is cheap, I'm told it's a terrible technology compared to Lambda and so maybe they are out there?

Either way you still will have to process the photographic paper. I don't see how scanning and digital enlarging and lambda printing could ever be economically feasible (compared to optical projection printing) to anyone but the wealthy or those in the commercial industry (like Bob C).

darkroom_rookie · Mar 14, 2014

ic-racer said:
Either way you still will have to process the photographic paper. I don't see how scanning and digital enlarging and lambda printing could ever be economically feasible (compared to optical projection printing) to anyone but the wealthy or those in the commercial industry (like Bob C).

Perhaps a 10x10" LVT machine to record film from scans? Or are those becoming way too old? Wasn't that how a world-famous Canadian photographer made his transparencies which were then optically enlarged to Ilfochrome film for huge light-boxes?

Sharpness Revisited - a JOBO Rotary Process Saga (pt2)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency