Simple Query on Safety / Ergonomics of Pyro's for fine grain + stain

[pentaxuser]

I had kind of forgotten about him in recent years but it turns out he switched to digital at some point.

I am always intrigued by why this has happened as you seldom seem to hear from the switcher the reasons why. If it is strictly business reasons then I can understand that. Everyone has to make a living but what always makes me wonder is if switching has been done because the person has decided it's the "better way" and there were reasons to back this up

pentaxuser

 

[John Wiegerink]

Indeed it was Wimberley who essentially started the “pyro revival” in the late 1970s with WD2D, although it’s worth noting he pretty much only used 5x7 film.

I had kind of forgotten about him in recent years but it turns out he switched to digital at some point.

I had read that he went digital also. I have the version of his developer that he was using before he went the digi route. That was/is W2H2+ and it works extremely well. I have a mixed batch from more than 5 years + and it's still working and staining just fine. Those are also in half full bottles. So, at least for the last version, it seems to keep pretty well. I might just run part of a roll of 35mm through it to see if what I just said is still true or not.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sometimes people just need a change of scenery - something new to get their juices flowing again - workflow wise. It transpires both directions. Some people give up digital and switch to film. In one local case, the photographer lost the lease to the house with its darkroom, and had to rethink his whole process confined to a much smaller house. Sometimes cumulative large format film expense is simply too much, especially if it's a machine-gunner stock photography business model. Sometimes it's just a "what if" decision based on curiosity.

 

[Milpool]

There are several common reasons accomplished photographers and/or meticulous workers have switched in my experience:

1. The digital process (in particular inkjet printing) has progressed/matured to the point it leaves nothing on the table in terms of print quality in comparison with non-digital methods. This in combination with the additional controls afforded by digital editing processes can yield beautiful results equaling or exceeding the quality of anything that can be done in the darkroom. This is a powerful draw in the face of the cumbersome darkroom.

2. Somewhat related to (1), high quality colour work is much more viable in the digital or hybrid realm. My understanding is an interest in colour played a role in Wimberley’s decision to switch.

3. Digital negatives for contact printing have made it much easier for people to produce alternative process (non-silver) prints.

4. Some darkroom printers found the relatively small selection of current darkroom papers too limiting etc. after their stashes of discontinued papers ran out or became unusable.

5. Cost of film (large format workers) has become a problem for some.

I am always intrigued by why this has happened as you seldom seem to hear from the switcher the reasons why. If it is strictly business reasons then I can understand that. Everyone has to make a living but what always makes me wonder is if switching has been done because the person has decided it's the "better way" and there were reasons to back this up

pentaxuser

 

[John Wiegerink]

There are several common reasons accomplished photographers and/or meticulous workers have switched in my experience:

1. The digital process (in particular inkjet printing) has progressed/matured to the point it leaves nothing on the table in terms of print quality in comparison with non-digital methods. This in combination with the additional controls afforded by digital editing processes can yield beautiful results equaling or exceeding the quality of anything that can be done in the darkroom. This is a powerful draw in the face of the cumbersome darkroom.

2. Somewhat related to (1), high quality colour work is much more viable in the digital or hybrid realm. My understanding is an interest in colour played a role in Wimberley’s decision to switch.

3. Digital negatives for contact printing have made it much easier for people to produce alternative process (non-silver) prints.

4. Some darkroom printers found the relatively small selection of current darkroom papers too limiting etc. after their stashes of discontinued papers ran out or became unusable.

5. Cost of film (large format workers) has become a problem for some.

Your numbers 4. & 5. are the ones that affect me the most, but I will admit almost all of my color work is digital now. I still enjoy the whole process of B&W from beginning to end. Now, if Cibachrome products were still out there I would be using those. I had got hook on Cibachrome/Ilfochrome just before there was no more.

 

[Milpool]

That’s a good point about Cibachrome. You reminded me that some years ago Christopher Burkett’s Ciba materials finally started to shift/deteriorate enough on him that for a while now he has been retiring images that can no longer be printed.

I have no doubt stunning digital prints could be made but that just isn’t how he wants to work, not to mention totally scrapping a finely tuned/honed process (he’s probably technically the best ever at chrome masking etc.) and retooling at his age…

Your numbers 4. & 5. are the ones that affect me the most, but I will admit almost all of my color work is digital now. I still enjoy the whole process of B&W from beginning to end. Now, if Cibachrome products were still out there I would be using those. I had got hook on Cibachrome/Ilfochrome just before there was no more.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Milpool - I find most digital color print options a step backward compared to optimized optical enlargements; and I do know some of the very best digital printers. Even they did better work optically printing it. What can be done using big uber-expensive laser printers in the hands of an expert can come close, but inkjet? - no way. Nobody like Burkett or myself want to go that route.

John - current Fujiflex Supergloss is significantly better than Cibachrome in many respects. Of course, you either have to start with color negs instead of chromes, or generate color internegs (which is getting pretty expensive to do in 8x10 format), or else scan and invert the image, and laser print onto the medium.

As far as Ciba fading goes, it all depends. Sure, there were people who used hot high-UV projector lighting to display them, and were lucky if they lasted 2 years. But I've got my very first one on the wall beside me, which was hung in mountain window light for four decades before I properly salvaged it; and it still looks great, even though the yellow dye has faded a bit. Eventually all the dyes crash, but what leads up to that is largely equal per dye, so there isn't a lot of color shift. Short story - Ciba doesn't like UV. But all the ones I have stored away look like they were made yesterday. Nor do I detect any shift in Cibas displayed under ordinary tungsten light.

But Ciba paper doesn't keep long prior to printing without serious crossover issues. I doubt the last unopened box of 20X24 in my freezer is still any good. In fact, even fresh Ciba would shift over the course of six months or so, and then go bad. Stockpiling it would be futile. Unexposed RA4 media keeps much better, but certainly not indefinitely!