Wet print or ink jet

OptiKen · Sep 22, 2014

I've yet to make a darkroom and gather all of the things required to actually make my own prints. Time, money, and the right time to spring it on my wife holds me back.
I am disappointed in the prints I get from my Kodak Inkjet and am thinking of getting an Epson primarily for Black and White printing.
I wonder, however, how many of you (us) actually wet print our photos in a darkroom (or send them out).
So..........
Darkroom
Printer
Digital (soft copy) only

Which are you?

cliveh · Sep 22, 2014

All of us.

Rick A · Sep 22, 2014

The only photos of mine that are available for viewing here, or any other site, are scans of prints made in my dark room.

Dr Croubie · Sep 22, 2014

I really don't like the B+W scans that I get, on screen or inkjetted. Scanning wet prints actually look a whole lot better on screen. I can also wet-print bigger than my 13" wide inkjet.
I've finally figured out how to scan C41 properly so it looks OK on screen, but I can also RA4 them if I want prints. I don't really do either right now, I just don't shoot C41 that much.
Scan and inkjet is the only thing I can do with E6 until someone (Ferrania?) brings back Cibachrome or I build a DIY 4x5 projector...

bdial · Sep 22, 2014

Most here wet print, some do both, but the digital side is off-topic here, and good information is available on dpug which is the digital analog to apug (). There is a link in the page banner.

I gave up on the notion of trying to get an acceptable print from my low-end printer long ago, and I don't care to spend the money it would take to get a good one. So my printing is 100% wet darkroom.

That said, everyone I know who is serious about digitally printing monochrome uses Epson.
Very good results are possible, and the serious practitioners are as anal about printers, papers and inks as we are about developers, film and paper.

Note that the highest praise I typically hear given to a digital monochrome print is "that looks almost as good as a silver print".

'nuff said, I hope it's helpful, and have a look at dpug.

wildbill · Sep 22, 2014

what's an inket? anything like a giclee?

Poisson Du Jour · Sep 22, 2014

Dr Croubie said:
I really don't like the B+W scans that I get, on screen or inkjetted. Scanning wet prints actually look a whole lot better on screen. I can also wet-print bigger than my 13" wide inkjet.
I've finally figured out how to scan C41 properly so it looks OK on screen, but I can also RA4 them if I want prints. I don't really do either right now, I just don't shoot C41 that much.
Scan and inkjet is the only thing I can do with E6 until someone (Ferrania?) brings back Cibachrome or I build a DIY 4x5 projector...

Ferrania!? "brings back Cibachrome"!?

The world does not need Cibachrome (and the torrid problems of supply, communication, inconsistent quality and expense) now. It has moved on to better, more flexible alternatives.

tkamiya · Sep 22, 2014

Double post!

tkamiya · Sep 22, 2014

As far as B&W photographs are concerned, I do darkroom processing nearly 100%. All B&W FINAL Photographs I care gets processed in darkroom 100% of the time. Occasionally, I scan the negatives and play around with it on computer and printer, just to see what is possible. Then, I head to my darkroom.

Color, on the other hand is the exact opposite.

I'm sure beautiful photographs can be created with either method. This is my preferred way.
I wish OP realizes he/she is among darkroom enthusiasts. This is like asking "anyone getting married?" at a wedding.

snapguy · Sep 22, 2014

not happy

I spent over $1000 for an Epson Photo Printer (19 inches wide) and was horribly disappointed.

ic-racer · Sep 22, 2014

OptiKen said:
am thinking of getting an Epson

Welcome to APUG. There are other forums for people that like spraypaint prints.

Truzi · Sep 22, 2014

So far I've only had minilabs do my printing of color snapshots. I did try their inkjet, and did not like them. I don't like the feel or the look, though I can't put my finger on why. When I take my film somewhere, I have it wet-printed.

As far as doing it myself, I've a used color enlarger waiting for me to stop procrastinating on both color and B&W printing. For me, scans are just for things I want to email or put on the web.

removed account4 · Sep 22, 2014

OptiKen said:
I've yet to make a darkroom and gather all of the things required to actually make my own prints. Time, money, and the right time to spring it on my wife holds me back.
I am disappointed in the prints I get from my Kodak Inkjet and am thinking of getting an Epson primarily for Black and White printing.
I wonder, however, how many of you (us) actually wet print our photos in a darkroom (or send them out).
So..........
Darkroom
Printer
Digital (soft copy) only

Which are you?

i print things in the darkroom
i print things with an ink printer,
i post digital images
and i have labs prints things i can't print myself (by giving them a file ) ...

one thing to think about with ink printers is they need to be calibrated to
your file, so if it looks funny, it isn't the printer it is the way you have it set up
the same thing goes for a lab ... it might look fine on your screen / print
but their screen isn't yours, and their profiles might be different ...

do what makes you happy and the heck with the peanut gallery ...

Hatchetman · Sep 22, 2014

I print anything worthwhile in the darkroom. Problem is I don't have enough that's worthwhile.

frank · Sep 22, 2014

Poisson Du Jour said:
Ferrania!? "brings back Cibachrome"!?

The world does not need Cibachrome (and the torrid problems of supply, communication, inconsistent quality and expense) now. It has moved on to better, more flexible alternatives.

I miss Cibachrome like you wouldn't believe. I only print B&W anymore.

Jim Christie · Sep 23, 2014

Due to a more urgent need for the space, I've recently had to dismantle my darkroom, which has put me on the hunt for an alternative way to produce B&W prints. My print output is low to begin with, and after a lot of thought I decided not to invest in an inkjet and the consumables that go with it. Instead, I've been searching for a lab that can produce quality (and consistent) silver gelatin black and whites at a reasonable price. I've tried a few, and most recently I got back a couple of prints from Ilfordlab (the US branch). I was quite pleased with these prints, and I'm planning on some further experiments to see how I can get the best out of the service. They also print optically, if you'd rather not hassle with scanning.

This gets me more or less where I want to be I can continue to develop my film at home, and then (in my case) scan and upload to Ilford. A hybrid workflow to be sure, but it's either that or nothing for now, so I'll take it! Good luck with your investigation.

-Jim

pbromaghin · Sep 23, 2014

I have a ton of high end darkroom equipment, but have yet to build a place to engage in the sacred arts. So presently I scan and print by spraying ink onto paper. It sucks and I rarely print anything.

Xmas · Sep 23, 2014

frank said:
I miss Cibachrome like you wouldn't believe. I only print B&W anymore.

Yea ditto I found ciba easier than mono...
But I use a Kodak Allinone for proofing mono
And a scanner ditto.
The little Ch toy scanner has a live view mode that would be good if I had more than a web book PC. Which I use for keyword retrieval to locate neg file.
After ciba all I do is ocassionally serpia tone and spot.
But loading cine souping negs at home scanning and gilee is easy for beginner to film. The changing bag is more expensive than Ch scanner and most have a gilee for digital.
The DSLR people crestfallen when you explain.

mr rusty · Sep 23, 2014

You have to ask yourself if it is the image or the process. When I shoot colour it gets sent to the lab and I get negs & scans, sometimes prints. No input from me. Usually holiday snaps that get shown to friends and family. When I shoot B&W the process is all mine. It's not just about the final image, the fun starts with choosing which neg to print, setting it up, choosing a paper, maybe a bit of burning & dodging. Sometimes I end up with a print that I am really pleased with. Sometimes I just learn something along the way. My darkroom is 6'6" x 4'6", wet one side, dry the other shelves over. I don't feel cramped.

Maybe spraying can produce a comparable image, but where's the fun!

Jesper · Sep 23, 2014

Working in the darkroom is good for my soul, computers are not. Not to mention that the results are better from wet printing.

FujiLove · Sep 23, 2014

I'm slowly buying all the stuff I need to equip a B&W (and maybe colour) darkroom and hope to have it set up by the end of the year. I have tried to print using an inkjet, but have never got on with it. To me it feels the same as digital photography: sterile and fake.

As an aside...

I read a thread on a different forum a few weeks ago which involved a heated debate over whether an inkjet print was as good as a real dye transfer print. Having never seen a dye transfer print (or realised I was looking at one) before, I read it thinking, "hmm...maybe high-end inkjets are that good these days". Then earlier this month I was lucky enough to visit the Irving Penn exhibition at the Palazzo Grassi in Venice which includes a couple of his dye transfer prints. I can only describe them as looking like printed transparencies. They were ink on paper, but glowed like Velvia sat on a light box. Incredibly rich and beautiful. I stood in front of them thinking about that forum argument, quietly chuckling to myself!

hdeyong · Sep 23, 2014

I don't want to buy a printer because I wouldn't use it enough to consume the inks before the nozzles plugged up or something.
And, it's all a little 'too electronic' for my taste. On my next trip back to Canada, I'm packing up and bringing my enlarger over to France. I'll change the plug and the bulb and I'm in business. Can't wait!
I have a cheap little film scanner I use to categorize negs, and reference them to the sheets they're stored in. That way I can use my computer to find the location of any negative in a minute or so. I guess they're good for something.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Sep 23, 2014

Jesper said:
Working in the darkroom is good for my soul, computers are not. Not to mention that the results are better from wet printing.

I agree with the first statement, the second is entirely false, and I say this as I am finishing my first real darkroom. The results from a highly skilled printer and an ink set like Piezography Carbon approach platinum-like quality, with a seemingly infinite tonal scale. The current show at the Atlanta Photography Group gallery has two of my "PC" prints, and they are just stunningly rich and detailed.

Most people never get acceptable results because they believe it should be easy, as in "just press print and we do the rest." You have to invest some serious time in the process to gain the knowledge required to produce top quality work. Add to that most people have no idea how to properly scan and process a negative for output.

Abelardo Morrel's recent retrospective at The High Museum had a mix of both print types and they were indistinguishable. Well, if it's good enough for one of the greatest living photographers...

Me, I love both silver and pigment. People have been printing/painting with pigments for ten thousand years. To act as if this is some crime simply because the pigment can now be applied in microscopic dots by a "machine" is just silly and self-defeating.

Do what you want, but don't feel the need to run down a watercolorist simply because you think oils are better.

RalphLambrecht · Sep 23, 2014

OptiKen said:
I've yet to make a darkroom and gather all of the things required to actually make my own prints. Time, money, and the right time to spring it on my wife holds me back.
I am disappointed in the prints I get from my Kodak Inkjet and am thinking of getting an Epson primarily for Black and White printing.
I wonder, however, how many of you (us) actually wet print our photos in a darkroom (or send them out).
So..........
Darkroom
Printer
Digital (soft copy) only

Which are you?

I never send anything out;film exposures are printed in the darkroom;digital capture is printed on Epson inkjet and I'm happy to say that I can get great looking prints from bothbut prefer the wet side still

David Brown · Sep 23, 2014

OptiKen said:
I've yet to make a darkroom and gather all of the things required to actually make my own prints.

So, I take it that the two dozen images you've put in the gallery are negative scans, and not inkjet prints. :confused:

There is nothing wrong with inkjet prints - they just don't belong here.

As to the original question:

B&W - all darkroom
color - all digital

Wet print or ink jet

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency