Still Wet Behind The Ears

Hi All,

For the past 8 years, most of my film protography has been B&W and I still perform darkroom wet printing for my "better" shots. However, I get the impression (and it's only an impression) that wet printing is perhaps now the minority printing process for film shooters, maybe even here at APUG. Is it just me or has wet printing fallen out of favour for many, if not most, film shooters?

I still like wet printing!

Jeff

I think it is more that many people who have come back to film haven't yet started to darkroom prints (again).

And quite a few people only darkroom print some of their photographs.

Even the members of my Darkroom group tend to use both technologies.

sport

I once had a boring 4-door Dodge and a racy, sleek, red, low-to-the-ground Italian Spyder (convertible). I drove the Dodge to commute to work and the Spyder when I was serious about motoring. It's the same thing today. If I want do do something real and serious, its the wet darkroom.

snapshot: With color that might be the case (although I sitll do wet printing with color also). - David Lyga

When I got back into film, I was all over the place. I set up a darkroom and started developing/enlarging and am really loving it. But that's strictly B&W.

For color, I have a lab develop it and get back negatives and scans, and print digitally from those.

I'd be interested in trying some color analog printing, but in all honesty, I've got enough of a learning curve in front of me as it is. Getting a good B&W print is still elusive (although my "hit" rate is slowly creeping up). I really don't have the time or inclination to go after color analog printing at this point...partly because I am fortunate to have a high-end, large format ink jet printer at my disposal which produces wonderful prints from my scans.

I like B&W darkroom work; silver printing, and alt process options (in addition to scanning for convenience/archiving). I don't like darkroom color printing though. It's not as hands on. Drums instead of trays, no safelight. less pleasant chemicals, maddening getting the colors absolutely perfect compared to color managed digital.

I have been doing dark room work since the early 60's, and only in the last couple of years stopped processing color. I send the scant few rolls of color out. IU have since sold off all my color processing gear, I just don't shoot enough to warrant the expense.

omaha said:

I'd be interested in trying some color analog printing, but in all honesty, I've got enough of a learning curve in front of me as it is.

Click to expand...

Rick A said:

I have been doing dark room work since the early 60's, and only in the last couple of years stopped processing color. I send the scant few rolls of color out. IU have since sold off all my color processing gear, I just don't shoot enough to warrant the expense.

Click to expand...

I found RA-4 color wet printing doable but more involved and complex. I didn't do enough to justify the chemistry I purchased and ended up throwing out chemicals as they went bad.

I can't see the point in digitally printing a negative scan. when i started doing my own wet prints from my negatives, all of a sudden everything made sense. i mean, going all that way shooting and processing your negative, only so you can digitize it and spend hours in front of a screen, tweaking that poor thing to death... no fun in that.

tal bedrack said:

I can't see the point in digitally printing a negative scan. when i started doing my own wet prints from my negatives, all of a sudden everything made sense. i mean, going all that way shooting and processing your negative, only so you can digitize it and spend hours in front of a screen, tweaking that poor thing to death... no fun in that.

Click to expand...

I take the opposite view.

Not that I find anything wrong with analog color printing. Quite the contrary. I've seen work that is genuinely impressive, and I'm pleased that you have found a process that you find satisfying.

But I have found in the last year that a well exposed color negative, properly scanned, provides a much better foundation for a downstream digital workflow than I could ever get from a digital camera. I realize that such a workflow skirts the boundaries of what is considered kosher here at APUG, but I also think it is where many (most?) film photographers are today. As such, I think it should be embraced. Photographers using a hybrid workflow are what will keep color film available (to the extent it is).

One point of emphatic agreement with you is found in the nature of the subsequent digital processing. If a photographer is using Photoshop to manipulate the image beyond all recognition...manipulating the "film-ness" out of it, as it were...then I agree that there is little point in starting with a film negative/scan. May as well be working all digital at that point, since none of the attributes that the film scan brought to the image will survive all the manipulations. It takes a lot more thought and effort (in my experience, at least) to craft a well exposed negative. If the substance of your creativity is found in your ability to engage in all sorts of Photoshop magic, then just get to it. What is the point of going through the time and effort to get a good negative when your DSLR will let you point/shoot/chimp/re-shoot until you get something that's "close enough"? When you work that way, the camera is not producing a "photograph", it is producing a pallet that you subsequently use as an input to your process. Its a different thing.

When I do this sort of work, I endeavor to use Photoshop truly as a "digital darkroom": I'll control the basic stuff much like someone doing an analog print would do. What I don't do is either (a) the crazy manipulations that completely alter the appearance of the photo or (b) bit-level twiddling or (c) erasing/moving stuff around. I don't want a manipulated result. I want something that is a faithful representation of the negative that I worked so hard to create.

You're supposed to scan or print? I was just holding the film to the light.

Seriously, though, I do neither. I have color developed, wet printed, and scanned for me (I will soon be doing this myself). I admit I've borrowed a cheap scanner on occasion to scan my self-developed B&W, but I've always intended to wet-print; I only scanned to get an idea of how they turned out. Even if I had a good scanner and used it, my goal would be to wet-print everything, and only scan for the web.

I'm also quite the procrastinator. I now have all I need to develop color and print B&W, but haven’t' gotten around to it yet.

tal bedrack said:

I can't see the point in digitally printing a negative scan. when i started doing my own wet prints from my negatives, all of a sudden everything made sense. i mean, going all that way shooting and processing your negative, only so you can digitize it and spend hours in front of a screen, tweaking that poor thing to death... no fun in that.

Click to expand...

I don't think so.
For skilled analogue-to-digital professionals, 15 minutes, tops, to prep a B&W scan. About 30-40 for colour output to wet RA-4.

Still printing here, and trying to keep it alive in the darkroom where I teach! Today I taught four, one hour classes to kids on the chromoskedasic process. Kinda hit and miss, but it was fun and there was a lot neat silvered out prints that were created. Two or three weeks ago I taught resist printing, using chocolate syrup, and we also did chemigrams using leaves as stamps. I do teach regular printing, but its nice to change it up a bit to keep them interested.

Though I do find myself a bit to exhausted to get into my own darkroom at home to print, after being in one all day and having to clean it up!

Dear Snapshot....

Thank you... this is absolutely my favourite topic, if I could type as fast as I can talk this would be the longest post in the history of APUG .......... I can't.... so it will have to be brief.

The purpose of photography is to produce an image that means something to you, from a personal or artistic perspective, how you view and value that image is very personal, in many cases the issue is what is actually important to you, the resultant physical print or the actual taking of the photograph and recording of the 'memory'......or its commercial or artistic merit.

So..... is imaging on film and then scanning becoming more prevalent...... yes is the answer, but this is a relatively recent phenomenen ( a fashion ? ) no, its more about people getting used to interacting with images on a computer screen ( d*****l ) and then having systems where you can view those images in some quality... the i pad and other devices which are pretty recent have made that easier to share the imagery.

So.......is wet printing suffering......the answer is no and yes.....

In monochrome the answer is no and in colour printing the answer is yes.... for colour I include inkjet printing which is also in decline. Please note I refer to the hobbyist area of colour photography not the mass Camear phone / facebook / instagram generation.

So if I have any area of expertise ( through exposure to it rather than any natural marketing brilliance ! ) its between the dynamic of black and white and colour.

So from 1960 to 1990 virtually everone who shot a colour film got 36 prints back from the D&P house that processed and printed them...

So KODAK / FUJI and AGFA sold approximately half a square metre of colour paper for every film they sold, which is about 9.5 times the volume of the original film sold.....

In monochrome that was never the case since colour photography came to the fore in the early sixties.

In monochrome, then and now, for the hobbyist, it was typical that you selected the images you wished to print, quite often, but not exclusively from a set of contact prints not a set of of 36 prints.

So, does scanning mean you no longer have to contact print ?, in some cases yes, but if you wish to understand what is 'in' the negative my answer would be no....

So we now come to the $ 60,000 question...

Everyone will correctly state I am biased because I'm involved in the manufacture of monochrome paper..... true....but.

When you take a monochrome photograph ( not I suggest a colour image on slide or neg ) you have completed only half the process, you then take that monochrome negative and you transform it into the finished article by your own skill and interpretation, and production of the image as you wish it to be, you can change using your own skill everything about the image and the way its presented and shown, you produce an image that only YOU can make or replicate, this also goes for many of the alt processes that should be said can include 'some' colour images.

You therefore have a unique and permanent personal memory with a physical presense, the image as you made it, this is not the same as a scanned film image.

This is why the vast majority of 'sold' photo imagery as a collectable is the final print, and in the true collector market is on silver geletin paper and usually baryta and in most cases monochrome.

It is also what to me makes the photographer and photography whole..... whilst professional printers do exist and their skills can transform an image, your image ( and they can ).. it is their interpretation even against a set of guidelines.

The greatest pleasure is to take the photograph and to print it yourself in a darkroom..... and that is why this company has been producing the means to do so since 1879... photography did not kill the painter and the painting, d*****l ( and a scanner ) will not kill film photography and the print.....

Believe me when I say, I have NEVER met a person who did not enjoy making a black and white print in a darkroom, I have met people who found it, and still find it, frustrating and challenging... but how many people say that about taking the photograph in the first place, if it was easy and simple we would all be Ansel Adam's, its not and we are'nt.....

For me, taking a good photograph ( negative ) is satisfying, making a great print is just the best feeling...

And I guess for many of you reading this you may have some of the same feeling as me.....and for those who do not print..... hopefully you may discover the light, or is that the dark...

And the above says everything to me about why I do what I do, and how lucky I am to do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do not think I am underestimating or knocking colour photography or printing, I absolutely love it too, but from a personal perspective the 'wet' print rendering I find less creative and more the technical production of a 'correct' colour print.

Simon : ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

What can I add to Simon's post above other than to echo exactly his thoughts, but from a much less experienced perspective!

I now shoot 80-90% black and white on film, 10-15% colour film and very occasional d*******l on a P&S. Colour goes to a lab and I get it scanned there. These images seldom get printed. I have no interest in colour darkroom work because I don't believe I can add any artistic input; it would just be a case of getting the process "right" to reproduce what the lab do, quicker, better and probably cheaper (certainly if I factor in that I don't have to home-scan which takes an age on my crappy scanner). If colour film dies, (although I don't think it will completely) I probably wouldn't mourn it too much. I appreciate that some would, particularly those that shoot slides (which I have never done, even when they were more "mainstream")

B&W is a totally different ball-game. As Simon says, the negative is only half the journey, and THIS is why I enjoy darkroom; it is the challenge of balancing and manipulating all the variables to produce a personalized end result that is interesting. With so many film developers, papers, toners etc. etc., B&W is an artistic process, and not a production process, which I think is pretty much all home colour processing can ever be.

To those who have never get their hands wet: you are missing out! I realise not everyone has the space/access for a home-darkroom, and yes, film + scan is a reasonable compromise, but my own view is that interest in darkroom skills is certainly not declining as far as B&W is concerned.

As an aside, a friend of mine is into printing from etched metal plates she makes at home. Although not photography, there is some commonality in that whilst some images are literally "engraved" by scratching into the metal, for others the image is created through a light-sensitive resist and etched back, before being inked and put through a roller-press to create the final artwork. This is similar to the way they made "engravings" to illustrate old books before photography was invented. B&W darkroom is definitely now an "artform" in the same way, and one that I believe will survive in some form within this niche market for the foreseeable.

jp498 said:

I like B&W darkroom work; silver printing, and alt process options (in addition to scanning for convenience/archiving). I don't like darkroom color printing though. It's not as hands on. Drums instead of trays, no safelight. less pleasant chemicals, maddening getting the colors absolutely perfect compared to color managed digital.

Click to expand...

Wellll...you can do color in trays. I hate drums. You can use a safelight, albeit a dim one compared to B&W. I have an Osram Duka 50 which, while the bulb lasts anyway, can be set to minimum setting and used for RA4 quite well, and at that it's about as bright as one of the dimmer conventional B&W safelights.

Still, I haven't done it since the 90s. I plan to again. But the general point I agree with - I wet print ALL my black and white final prints. Color I'm still waiting to get back into but I suspect I'll probably do both when I do.

Simon R Galley said:

For me, taking a good photograph ( negative ) is satisfying, making a great print is just the best feeling...

Click to expand...

Thank you, Simon. This statement alone sums up for me what I feel about photograhy. I have taken many shots I like but the few that make it to the wall give me a rush of joy!

Seems like a good time to thank Simon again for his assistance when I was just getting started with the darkroom last year. Much appreciation!

> This is why the vast majority of 'sold' photo imagery as a collectable is the final print, and in the true collector
> market is on silver geletin paper and usually baryta and in most cases monochrome.

This is something I've pondered for a while....how does the curator of a museum or the owner of a gallery deal with modern (digital) color prints?

While I am pleased that I can get a nice result from my hybrid workflow, it is also a fundamental truth that the production of the final "thing"...the actual print...requires essentially zero skill and can be replicated without variation an unlimited number of times.

The photographer working in B&W (analog from start to finish) is producing individually unique prints using a process that inherently limits the number that can be made, and even the most methodical analog printer can't help but introduce minor variations from one print to the next. The photographer working in digital/hybrid may being an incredible level of artistic mastery to the exposure and editing phases of the process, but the final step where the actual artifact is produced is entirely mechanical. Even the aspects of digital print production that do require some degree of artistic judgement (selection of printer/ink system/paper) are decisions that, once made, deterministically lead to the final result. How does a market built on scarcity and uniqueness deal with an artistic work that has neither?

Andy Warhol challenged the art world with his mass production "Factory", and the most expensive photograph ever sold was made using a hybrid workflow, so what do I know?

Dear Omaha,

When you look at the sale of important 'colour' prints they are described by process, eg 'C' Type print 'R' Type print or Cibachrome prints and are classed therefore as silver gelatin prints which indeed they are, conservators or galleries or collectors no how to look after them.

You can of course print down a 'digital' file to a photographic medium be it colour or monochrome, via a Lightjet or a Lambda this in effect inbibes the print with the 'silver gelatin' collecters tick box, which is absolutely correct, thats what they are.

Inkjet prints have various terms applied but they are basically related as to 'standard' reprographic prints of photographs or paintings as they have no agreed level of permanence or longevity, basically, since you cannot verify the process used, the base treatment or the inks used they cannot be given any other descriptor. We are all aware of 'Giclee' prints in relation to inkjet prints... that actually originated for prints from IRIS Inkjet printers, I think from Nash Editions in California and caught on, its from the French for nozzle I believe.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

that should be 'know' how to look after them !

I must be tired today

OMG I feel guilty when I don't buy Ilford products! I really love Simon being here and being so helpful. Oh well, money is like manure, you've got to spread it around for it to do any good. I agree with Simon and I do like making the negative, but I get a rush when I see a print come up in the developer. I have a couple of good scanners (Nikon LS8000 and a Microtek ArtixScan M1) plus a Canon 13x19 and HP 13x19 printers and do go that route with some of my shots. If there is a certain special one it's then off to the darkroom. The last color darkroom work I did was Cibachrome and still have some paper, but no chemicals. If I were to go color again it would be only if Cibachome chems and paper came back (affordable), but I doubt that will happen. JW

omaha said:

Andy Warhol challenged the art world with his mass production "Factory", and the most expensive photograph ever sold was made using a hybrid workflow, so what do I know?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm a complete ignoramus, but what makes that photograph special (i.e., price). Seems quite mundane actually. But then again, I never sold a photograph for over a thousand dollars.

Simon R Galley said:

I must be tired today

Click to expand...

The very existence of the term "Giclée" is telling...a cry from the ink-jet printers of the world for artistic legitimacy. I understand that when native French speakers hear it, however, it strikes their ears much as the term (forgive me for the blue language) "cum shot" strikes an American. Irony can be so amazing at times, and language can be such a mine-field.

But when language is used to obfuscate rather than communicate, you get what you get.

Eventually, I suppose, all this gets sorted out. There are people working in digital media who are creating amazing art. But how the sorting happens, I have no idea.

Artist / Context / taste / fashion / nostalgia / investment and half a hundred other things....

But in the end its what makes sense for the buyer...

Art and what is art, and why you like it or don't has been agonised over since the dawn of time...

The important thing to me is to be able to say I 'like' or don't 'like' a piece of art, but never to tell someone else to 'like' it or 'not' to like it... as that's up to them.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :