This guy has some good equipment in his darkroom

[removedacct1]

I think a closer to truth viewpoint is that there are two major camps in the field: Those who embrace discussions on merits and are accepting of other approaches, and those who rather dismiss others with vague arguments about how things they dislike lack an undefined 'soul' so they don't actually have to defend their real viewpoint...

This, absolutely. I find nothing more discouraging in this community than judgemental rants that suggest access to superior equipment = sterile, lifeless output. How absurd.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I agree with you. Feels like a sterile darkroom lacking of an artistically inspired process. Technical overkill and control doesn't necessarily help good artwork, and after all that's what it could be all about?
On the other hand it maybe doesn't make an artist less productive to put him in an environment where everything works flawlessly.
I guess the real question is, if one is attracted to going through all this in order to produce a technically clean but somewhat boring print of a photograph that doesn't touch (at least) me.
This video proves that there are two major camps in this wide field , photography as a technique on the one and photography as art on the other hand. Sometimes, often, they come together and sometimes they just don't.
Guess it's just not for me, no offence intended.

I saw some footage of one of the French custom labs that still does big mural work - the difference was stark - while they've got some of the finest enlargers ever made & while the staff mostly wear white lab coats (generally a good idea if you're mural printing), the whole atmosphere was that of an intensely creative environment with personality and ability very much on display - like pretty much any other competent custom lab.

I think quite a lot of the division is to do with people who take pictures in order to use equipment (cameras/ darkroom) in rather fetishistic ways vis-a-vis people who use cameras, enlargers etc to make images, prints etc. It's a bit like someone buying a Steinway (or a 1959 Les Paul etc) because they really want to have one - as opposed to a professional musician buying an instrument relevant to their professional practice.

 

[chris77]

I saw some footage of one of the French custom labs that still does big mural work - the difference was stark - while they've got some of the finest enlargers ever made & while the staff mostly wear white lab coats (generally a good idea if you're mural printing), the whole atmosphere was that of an intensely creative environment with personality and ability very much on display - like pretty much any other competent custom lab.

I think quite a lot of the division is to do with people who take pictures in order to use equipment (cameras/ darkroom) in rather fetishistic ways vis-a-vis people who use cameras, enlargers etc to make images, prints etc. It's a bit like someone buying a Steinway (or a 1959 Les Paul etc) because they really want to have one - as opposed to a professional musician buying an instrument relevant to their professional practice.

Saying this loud will always offend people. And I totally agree with you. Nevermind

 

[MattKing]

In my experience, shared/cooperative/school darkrooms are either kept neat and clean, or they become quickly unpleasant and/or impossible to use, and aren't used, except by a small number of unpleasantly selfish people.
Not meaning this as criticism for the OP in any way, but I wonder if this thread would have proceeded better if the title made more reference to the printing and less reference to the equipment.
I liked the fact that I got to see some equipment being used that I don't have experience with, but I appreciated the lesson about printing choices and techniques even more.

 

[chris77]

In my experience, shared/cooperative/school darkrooms are either kept neat and clean, or they become quickly unpleasant and/or impossible to use, and aren't used, except by a small number of unpleasantly selfish people.
Not meaning this as criticism for the OP in any way, but I wonder if this thread would have proceeded better if the title made more reference to the printing and less reference to the equipment.
I liked the fact that I got to see some equipment being used that I don't have experience with, but I appreciated the lesson about printing choices and techniques even more.

Feels like 'the emperor's nnew clothes" if someone knows this. So let's cut to the chase.
The photograph in this video sucks big time.
Therefore the interest in this video is reduced to the technical aspect.
Nothing wrong with it. But awfully lame.
Let's move on

 

[chris77]

This, absolutely. I find nothing more discouraging in this community than judgemental rants that suggest access to superior equipment = sterile, lifeless output. How absurd.

If you would have understood what i wrote in the beginning you would have understood that I am not judging anything. It's just boring to see all this great equipment being used to create very mediocre imagery. In my opinion..

 

[Sirius Glass]

As someone coming to photography from a technical background and accustomed to clean, organized, and well thought out purpose built work spaces, I'm curious to hear what all the random clutter, junk, uncleaned stains, and useless crap collecting dust in a 'well lived in' darkroom is supposed to add to my artistic abilities...

I think a closer to truth viewpoint is that there are two major camps in the field: Those who embrace discussions on merits and are accepting of other approaches, and those who rather dismiss others with vague arguments about how things they dislike lack an undefined 'soul' so they don't actually have to defend their real viewpoint...

+1

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I'm curious to hear what all the random clutter, junk, uncleaned stains, and useless crap collecting dust in a 'well lived in' darkroom is supposed to add to my artistic abilities...

I'm in the process of clearing out some of the random clutter from my darkroom at the moment and already feel a benefit.

 

[warden]

I've never heard of this guy before this thread but he is a badass. He climbed to the summit of that scene, 18,500 ft, while carrying a large format rig and 35mm as well while tethered to his climbing buddies who were yelling at him because he was so slow. Apparently he made four LF exposures at the summit in the cardinal directions. I haven't seen those but I'd like to. I imagine they'd be more interesting than the rather static view he selected but who knows. A few of his 35mm shots look pretty good to me.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The only thing that matters is the print. It doesn't matter if you can eat off the floor of your darkroom or you can't even see the floor of your darkroom. Only the print. If you prefer it one way or another that is fine, but don't dis others because they have a different process.

I remember a while back there was an English photographer that took images of all the professional darkrooms left in London. Went and found it- http://www.richardnicholson.com/projects/last-one-out/

You'll notice that every darkroom is different. Different enlargers, different setups, different levels of chaos. Doesn't matter.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Saying this loud will always offend people. And I totally agree with you. Nevermind

I've found that the people who most routinely break expensive enlargers are those who regard them as an executive toy rather than as a piece of complex industrial machinery that needs to be treated with the appropriate respect.

In my experience, shared/cooperative/school darkrooms are either kept neat and clean, or they become quickly unpleasant and/or impossible to use

There's a fundamental difference between 'clean' and 'sterile' - and every darkroom that actually gets used gets a distinct patina of use very quickly from routine use/ cleaning cycles.

The only thing that matters is the print. It doesn't matter if you can eat off the floor of your darkroom or you can't even see the floor of your darkroom. Only the print. If you prefer it one way or another that is fine, but don't dis others because they have a different process.

I remember a while back there was an English photographer that took images of all the professional darkrooms left in London. Went and found it- http://www.richardnicholson.com/projects/last-one-out/

You'll notice that every darkroom is different. Different enlargers, different setups, different levels of chaos. Doesn't matter.

Within those images are the darkrooms of some of the greatest printers who have ever lived - and it's only some, not all of the professional darkrooms at the time. I'm expecting many pearls to be clutched by the people who apparently rarely actually use darkrooms for their intended purpose.

 

[chris77]

Guess

The only thing that matters is the print. It doesn't matter if you can eat off the floor of your darkroom or you can't even see the floor of your darkroom. Only the print. If you prefer it one way or another that is fine, but don't dis others because they have a different process.

I remember a while back there was an English photographer that took images of all the professional darkrooms left in London. Went and found it- http://www.richardnicholson.com/projects/last-one-out/

You'll notice that every darkroom is different. Different enlargers, different setups, different levels of chaos. Doesn't matter.

Totally agree with you!

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are valid arguments for good equipment. It's less hassle to work with, cheaper to maintain over time, saves material waste, and in the long run generally turns out to be the real bargain. Working clean likewise. Or do you prefer endless spotting? But I'm speaking as a user, not as a collector of fancy gear just for the bragging rights. I've actually made more gear than I've bought, but even then, feel better about what I'm doing if I've done it well right from the start.

 

[Lachlan Young]

But I'm speaking as a user, not as a collector of fancy gear just for the bragging rights.

That was essentially my point. I have Rodagon-G's, not because they're a flashy object, but because they make life drastically easier for making properly sharp mural prints from smaller negs. A lot of the time I find that people either try to find excuses to cheap out or else go the total other direction and buy every device going rather than spending their money on aspects that will actually make a useful difference to their prints. Ergonomics are important too - I wouldn't really go out of my way to buy a Durst 138 for example, but I'd spend a lot on the right De Vere, because I find them much more operationally 'transparent' when I'm printing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I love 138's, L184's too. Two months of weekends rewiring it, cleaning the colorhead filters, replacing the bellows, relaminated the baseboard, and what do I get for my $0 investment plus another $300 or so in repair materials - a like new $26,000 color L184 unit for about $300 (plus some darn sore muscles and fingers from moving it!). For my even bigger custom 8x10 enlarger, where everything is massive and heavy, I needed an even more stable and precisely controllable yaw-free focus support than even Hollywood has. So I got a machined bronze naval artillery aiming mount - net cost, military surplus, zero $. Even as a dealer of the very finest woodworking equipment, I never bought anything I didn't actually need, no matter how tempting the bargain. I mostly dealt with pros; but there were a few collector types who demanded the best themselves, but never once plugged it in, or even really knew how to use such things. The same people had their unused Leicas and Hassies too.

 

[MattKing]

In my experience, shared/cooperative/school darkrooms are either kept neat and clean, or they become quickly unpleasant and/or impossible to use, and aren't used, except by a small number of unpleasantly selfish people.

There's a fundamental difference between 'clean' and 'sterile' - and every darkroom that actually gets used gets a distinct patina of use very quickly from routine use/ cleaning cycles.

Just like there just might be a fundamental difference between the expectations and norms of a photographic co-op in Russia, Scotland and British Columbia, Canada.
I know that my home always looks its best when I know that guests are coming - how does anyone know that the darkroom in that video always looks that neat?!
That video isn't about how to keep your darkroom neat, it is about how at least one photographer uses tools and techniques available to them.
Can you blame them for sprucing things up (if they did) before the cameras ran.
I have worked in a couple of darkrooms that were shared by experienced (newspaper) photographers, and were kept clean by people employed for that purpose - they didn't look that different.
The working area outside the darkrooms had a lot more signs of "character".
And as for the print itself - who cares if it doesn't excite some of us? If it was a print of the photographer's child's tenth birthday party, it would be just as capable as a technical illustration.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've worked in high school darkrooms, college darkrooms, military darkrooms, newspaper darkrooms, large wire service darkroom and my own dark rooms. All were and are kept clean, as dust free as possible, no smoking, and because it's a darkroom, clutter is a bad thing, tripping is not good. Some had very good and well maintained gear, the Air Force darkrooms had D5s with and without color heads, good timers, large temperature controlled sinks, demineralized water supply, while my college darkroom, the gear was old but maintained as best it could be with a limited budget. No matter what a darkroom should be clean and uncluttered. Saying that,a clean uncluttered darkroom does not imply creative genius, only a sound approach to work.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Clean and organized darkrooms makes for more successful results than the dirty darkroom with things in the way and to trip over that Lachlan Young advocates as more authentic. Lachlan Young what is your address so I can send my surplus dirt and clutter to you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I maintain a separate true clean room for film and color printing prep, true cleanroom smock, industrial air cleaner, triple-filtered compressed air, the whole nine yards. When an 8x10 stacked masking or color separation setup involves multiple sheets of film and then a 30x40 inch polyester print, hundreds of dollars are at risk if one does not work as clean as possible. If I do any fiber-based b&w printing in that same room, like I'm doing now, or wear casual cotton clothing in there, every inch of it has to be swabbed down before using it for serious color printing prep work again. It has nothing to do with what hypothetical visitors think. I don't give tours. It's just common sense.

 

[chris77]

My darkroom is almost perfectly clean, tile floor, nothing laying around, everything has its place, contains a durst 138 and a m800.

Why I found this video pathetic is because the guy makes a test print, finds the low contrast dull image kind of boring himself, and considers that by increasing contrast the final result would be more valuable from an artistic point of view.

Artistic value is not a effect that you apply or something you can add in the final stage to make something look arty and therefore consider it art.
An 'educational video' that aims at beginners should, in my opinion, not pretend to 'show how to make artwork' or 'make a fine print' and therefore call yourself an artist.

That was my whole point. Maybe I am out of line. Or confinement has made me too strict

 

[macfred]

I followed the video with interest - thanks for sharing !
a -in my eyes- sympathetic person demonstrates his darkroom technique in a very well equipped laboratory.
Besides, it is -to me- obvious that he knows what he is doing.
The whole thing is in no way connected to my (non-permanent) darkroom. I have a Durst - and a Dunko enlarger, which I set up more or less regularly in the bathroom; my trays are standing on the bathtub ...
However, I must admit that I would like to have such premises and equipment at my disposal.
The print shown in the video is quite well done; whether or not this is art is in the eye of the beholder. For my taste he has overdone a little bit here, but if he is happy with the result, he has done everything right.
I didn't see this video as a lesson in darkroom work - I see a very nice and passionate photographer who does his thing with enthusiasm.

 

[iakustov]

Too much envy in this thread..
Apart from their excellent equipped darkroom with lots of modern stuff (and which can rented), these guys regularly hold (free) exhibitions of traditional silver prints. They also have a large dry mount (hot) press, I used this service many times to mount my FB prints and was always pleased with the quality. So, nearly any wish of a LF photographer can be fulfilled.
If there is a demand in enlargement of ULF negatives - why not? However, personally, I dont see much gain in quality going that large, but I find contact prints and alternative processes as an exception.

 

[chris77]

No envy. But I guess you are right.
It's not up to me to judge anything about this video or whatever.
I was out of line and I apologise if my statement has disturbed or hurt someone.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have been following these people for a while , I would love to go to Russia and visit with them, my type of people.

 

[removedacct1]

If you would have understood what i wrote in the beginning you would have understood that I am not judging anything. It's just boring to see all this great equipment being used to create very mediocre imagery. In my opinion..

"Not judging anything"??? Did you not say this in the previous post?:

The photograph in this video sucks big time.

If that's not judgement, then I clearly don't understand the term.