 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / March 2004P.S. Am I Crazy For Building a Darkroom In the Spectre of Digital Mania?
Just wondering. My main reason is that I'm a control freak and at some point think there will be an affordable direct to paper enlarger. Currently I'm scanning with a Epson 3200 and FTP'ing my files to a local photo store. The results are "ok" but...I still haven't been able to get them to produce a color profile I can live with. Also, I'm just wondering what makes people in darkrooms still tick. I'm probably one of the rare people going from digital back into the wet world. I think there's room for both still. > Just wondering. My main reason is that I'm a control freak and at some point > think there will be an affordable direct to paper enlarger. Currently I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > darkrooms still tick. I'm probably one of the rare people going from digital > back into the wet world. I think there's room for both still. IMO for the non-commercial end it, the answer is tactility. Hands on crafting of something, then as far as you want to go with alternative practices. I think of Sally Mann's work with 8x10 glass plates. Or any number of other artist that go the extra mile for a tactile and expressive print. I'm still doing silver myself, as I like a certain type of plain unassuming documentary style with no distractions, but I go to considerable length to arrive at the just right feel in the final print, because it's crucial for "getting" the reason the picture was taken. In this world of everything done for us, out of our hands "convenience", I feel whatever slight individuality I can imbue into my images, is its measure of satisfaction. That said, I have no quaims against digital in the slightest. It's just another medium. I am now into making paper negs from 8x10, then scanning them for the best possible sharpness, as contacts don't work as well. Setting up rival camps is truely an idle folly. Commercially, I wouldn't hesitate to use anything digital, unless I was doing portraits for keepsake ala Llyod Erlick. Ken Smith > I am now into making paper negs from 8x10, then scanning them for > the best possible sharpness, as contacts don't work as well. You are making paper 8x10 negs? and from 8x10 what? IIRC you work with 120. Just what is it that you do with one frame of that 120 that brings you to a paper negative; a paper negative which will not make a sharp positive print? You mentioned paper negatives a few days ago. I mentioned the direct negative method and an article by Liam Lawless at unblinkingeye. Have you checked that out? I think you are just tinkering, experimenting. Dan Sofaking - we meet again. In my case, I realized that I wanted the keep the darkroom - yet needed some digital capability. This decision was made because of the quality of the prints and I like 11x14 and 16x20 prints. Therefore, I bought an Epson Perfection 3170 Photo scanner which allows me to scan 35mm and 2 1/4 sq negatives as well as prints. This lets me scan a print or negative and ship that print to my granddaughter in Iraq. One thing that amazed me was the digital resolution of the scanner. Today's digital cameras are providing 3, 4, 5 or 6 megapixels - for the entire image. The Epson 3170 scanner provides 3200 x 6400 or 20.5 megapixels per square inch!!! That is a BIG difference. Scans of negatives are unreal. Now, I haven't mastered the capabilities of PhotoShop and haven't played around with the color profile. I can see where those capabilities will take some time. ---- Jerry/Idaho [...] > Now, I haven't mastered the capabilities of PhotoShop and haven't > played around with the color profile. I can see where those > capabilities will take some time. ---- Jerry/Idaho I understand the need for color profiles in the commercial world, but for my home use, I just sent a print to Wal-mart, and then adjusted my monitor (with the front panel buttons) to match what I got back. Now when I do things in Photoshop, the results are very predictable. The color balance and luminosity are really good matches, and the only thing I need to remember is that colors will oversaturate a hair sooner on my monitor. Works for me. Bob > Just wondering. My main reason is that I'm a control freak and at some > point think there will be an affordable direct to paper enlarger. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one of the rare people going from digital back into the wet world. I > think there's room for both still. About a year ago I did some soul searching, trying to decide if I should build a chemical darkroom, or a digital one. I ended up with a sort of hybrid plan. I picked up a Nikon Coolpix 5000 on closeout for $450. After a day with it, I realized that I would never shoot color film again, because the results are just so good and so easy. Some day I will probably have a DSLR, but not until the prices fall a good bit. I'm going to build a B&W darkroom. We're adding on to our house, and I get to have 1/2 of the old kitchen (an 8 foot cube) for my darkroom. Plumbing, electric, and ventilation are already in place. It will probably be a year before the kitchen actually moves, even though the addition will probalby be finished within the month. Anyway, the reason behind my darkroom is to make large prints from 4x5 negatives. The few 4x5 prints I've made are more than enough to demonstrate that it will be quite a while before digital goes there. At least with equipment most of us can afford. That, and I work with comptuers all day, every day, at work, and I do a lot of image manipulation there. I want to do something different for my hobby than I do for my job. Bob I like the hybrid idea. Mix up the technolgies until you find the right combination. I think you can't ignore advances in the science. But people should also know that 6 X 7 = 42 before buying a calculator or computer for that matter. > About a year ago I did some soul searching, trying to decide if I should > build a chemical darkroom, or a digital one. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bob > Also, I'm just wondering what makes people in >darkrooms still tick. I'm probably one of the rare people going from digital >back into the wet world. I think there's room for both still. What makes me tick in my wet darkroom? The magic. There's sonething about watching a black & white print image appear in the developer. Or, turning on the room lights & seeing a great color print in the wash tray. Plus, I get what I want in a print, not what a lab thinks I want. If I don't like a print, I make another one. I don't have to go back to the lab & try to describe what I want. I've scanned prints & played with them in Photoshop, but it's just not the same. Digital is ok if you like it, but it's just not for me. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Professional Shop Rat: 14,267 days in a GM plant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - That's interesting. I have a friend who works in radio. Mostly these days all radio is pre-recorded to some extent but there's a move afoot to adopt more and more 'live' programming. The reason given by the powers that be was "something magic" happens in live radio. > What makes me tick in my wet darkroom? The magic. There's sonething > about watching a black & white print image appear in the developer. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Professional Shop Rat: 14,267 days in a GM plant. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Just wondering. My main reason is that I'm a control freak and at some point > think there will be an affordable direct to paper enlarger. Currently I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > darkrooms still tick. I'm probably one of the rare people going from digital > back into the wet world. I think there's room for both still. Maybe this is a nice opportunity for this lurker to make his presence known. I'm a beginner in photography. I got my first SLR a year ago, something I yearned for for years. After a friend dusted of his old darkroom to show me about printing, I got hooked. I bought a cheap second hand enlarger, which came with some basic darkroom material. I set up a small, very basic darkroom and I'm ghaving the time of my life with it. It's far from ideal, and it's far from perfect, but I still have so much basic stuff to learn that I don't mind too much. I have a nice scanner too, and I scan negatives to email pictures to friends, play around with PS a bit and mainly to try out things that I want to try in my darkroom and use the scans as an alternative to contact sheets. But the ultimate thing to me is making a nice print. Or trying to, anyway. My pictures are still bad (but improving), my prints are really not that good (but I'm slowly getting the hang of some of the basics) but the bottom line to me is that I'm having a lot more fun in my darkroom then I have behind a computer screen. Not really comparable to the OP and I certainly don't produce better prints then a quality lab, but that's what makes me tick. Best regards, David Thanks for the words. I'm in the same frame of mind as you. Except the fun won't start for another month when I've finally moved my gear in. I too picked up a used enlarger (Besseler 45MX), and the rest of a retiring pro's darkroom for that matter. > I have a nice scanner too, and I scan negatives to email pictures to > friends, play around with PS a bit and mainly to try out things that I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > David >Just wondering. My main reason is that I'm a control freak and at some point >think there will be an affordable direct to paper enlarger. Currently I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >darkrooms still tick. I'm probably one of the rare people going from digital >back into the wet world. I think there's room for both still. I use digital, but it's the wet darkroom that make sme tick. I spend a lot of time before my computer, writing articles on B&W photography. But I don't see the fun in digitally manipulating images. I like my wet darkroom much much better. It's the magic of working wit real materials, not virtual materials. It's also about being in a confined dark space fully concentrated on sculpting lightbeams. In the darkroom I completely forget about the outside world with it's problems and stress. I can destress in a darkroom which I cannot in front of a computer screen. A very close friend of mine is a computer expert working for our national tax offices. He does computers, programming languages and image manipulations every day. Guess what his hobby is... the wet darkroom. Computers are work for him. B&W baryta prints are his passion. Gilbert I built a nice small chemical darkroom with water temperature regulation, good vents, nice benches, new ABS sink, etc. last year. Not cheap. Why? Because I just like working with paper and chemicals. I have worked as a systems analyst and networking specialist at times for the last 30 years. I have done digital images and even printed then on HP pen plotters (still have a 7475 barely used in the box) in the DOS era. Frankly, digital just doesn't do it for me. This is not to say digital is "inferiror" and chemical is "superior." It's just a matter of personal preference. I like to challenge myself up with the limitations of paper and chemicals. I do B&W exclusively. My only worry in all of this is sometime soon our range of films, papers, and chemicals will be severly limited as players drop out of the market. IMHO, it's no more crazy to prefer a chemical darkroom than to prefer driving a Chevy to driving a Ford. > >Just wondering. My main reason is that I'm a control freak and at some point > >think there will be an affordable direct to paper enlarger. Currently I'm [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Gilbert > I have worked as a > systems analyst and networking specialist at times for the last 30 years. I too recently decided to go for a darkroom instead of digital, and one of the major considerations (in addition to cost) is that I already spend hours during the day glued to my computer screen (I'm a software engineer). From the other postings on the topic, it seems like I'm not alone: a good number of us hardware and software geeks want to do something qualitatively different with our self-expression. There is a also a magical element in it for me, too. The phrase "sculpting lightbeams" really strikes a cord with me. Burning and dodging -- it's like painting with light. In film exposure, too, there is a feeling of magic about using natural light to cause that silver to phsyically clump together in an expressive way. I suppose one could make the same observation about causing electrons to pulse in a ccd, but there's something about the silver that appeals to me in this respect. I also think that digital is great when you need the productivity boost. I don't know any professionals who aren't using digital to large extent, and that is understandable: you can't afford not to use digital if you're in the commercial world. I'm glad that I don't do photography for a living and can take the time to work with silver and light in the dark. --Phil Phil: Nicely put! I feel exactly the same way you do about working with film vs digital. I am very careful in my comments never to say derogatory things about digital photography, It is every bit as important and legitimate a means of self expression as is film photography. It's just not one I want to do, for whatever reason. > > I have worked as a > > systems analyst and networking specialist at times for the last 30 years. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > --Phil ... every bit as important and legitimate a means of >self expression as is ... feb2004 from Lloyd Elick, I've seen people (at drunken artist parties I'll admit...) passionately defending or attacking materials and techniques. It's difficult to distinguish between discussions of FB-RC, analog-digital, and oil-acrylic. Oil-acrylic is a heavy issue... I certainly agree about the pleasures of the wet darkroom. I don't find computer printing attactive at all. I plan to be the last living portraitist using silver and lenses in a darkroom. regards, --le regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, 2219 Gerrard Street East, unit #1, Toronto M4E 2C8 Canada. --- voice 416-686-0326 lloyd AT the-wire DOT com http://www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ "Lloyd Erlick" <lloyd@the-wire.com> > I plan to be the last living portraitist using > silver and lenses in a darkroom. Apres-vous le deluge? Either you plan on living a very, very long time, or photography has a very short future.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio "I'll give up my print tongs when they pry them from my cold dead fingers" ... every bit as important and legitimate a means of >self expression as is ... feb2004 from Lloyd Elick, I've seen people (at drunken artist parties I'll admit...) passionately defending or attacking materials and techniques. It's difficult to distinguish between discussions of FB-RC, analog-digital, and oil-acrylic. Oil-acrylic is a heavy issue... I certainly agree about the pleasures of the wet darkroom. I don't find computer printing attactive at all. I plan to be the last living portraitist using silver and lenses in a darkroom. regards, --le regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, 2219 Gerrard Street East, unit #1, Toronto M4E 2C8 Canada. --- voice 416-686-0326 lloyd AT the-wire DOT com http://www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > ... every bit as important and legitimate a means > of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > http://www.heylloyd.com > ________________________________ Hey there Lloyd, and everyone else, I am an artist and you know it sounds strange that you love the darkroom as much as you say you do - to me. I also, work in that environment, but I do find it frustrating. For instance, I have to print up an exhibition in my house (rented) which I am leaving. The reason I am here is because my darkroom which I lovingly crafted has to be dismantled (acid free, double 20x16in twin Nova setup, by the way). Needless to say, my partner is in another part of the country. The reason for this is that I have a show to print up from my recent visit to the States (from New Zealand) where I got to spend two weeks in NY (visiting art galleries) as well as spending time with the amazing photo pioneer P. Gainer. Went to several different parts of the States as well and loved it!!! Right now, I can't bring myself to go in there... Today was not productive, but normally I usually have to work myself into going in there for work anyways... Experiments are fine, because thats kind of fun and interesting. But now as a semi-prof b&w photog (for 4 years, exhibiting in a dealer gallery for 8, a couple of public galery shows...) I find it more and more difficult to get in there and _work_ . Yes, I am lazy by nature. But I find darkroom work quite exhausting -- even when it doesn't smell :-)). However I fully understand the people above who use darkrooms as a way of creating in an analogue environment and find that enjoyable. At the same time I can't think of anything else which I'd rather be doing (in theory anyway) which is a very strange anomoly. Maybe, just lazy I suppose... For starters, I want to say "HOORAY" and "Kudos" to us so-called Analog photographers. The more you learn about the Wet Darkroom the better you will feel about being a part of the Traditional Photographic Art Form. I kind of like the idea of being part of the old world of photography. It plays into my fantasy of being part of the last century of Photography. As a Wet Darkroom Photographer, you will sit among the great photographers; Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, David Bailey Ansel Adams, etc. There will come a day when your WET Darkroom Skills will be a lost Art Form. So why do we need to defend the notion that the Wet Darkroom is an antiquated Art Form? Answer: Speed & Convenience! There is a real advantage when dealing with the ease and convenience of Digital Photography. If you use Digital Photography for commercial use, you are abandoning the Wet Darkroom; You are using the Digital Darkroom for the purpose of making Money. A Commercial Photog is going to be more productive when using Digital Cameras and Laptop/Printer Darkrooms than a traditional Photographer. I am starting to see a lot more competition in the commercial photography arena. While perusing through www.craigslist.com I couldn't help noticing the ads for $350.00, $150.00, and $60.00 Headshots. OUCH!!! That is a Reality Slap for us 1500.00, $1000.00, and $500.00 Traditional Headshot Film Photographers. The majority of the (Less than $500.00 Photogs) are Digital Photographers. Minimal to zero Labs Costs, No Film, and immediate turnaround Time for Prints. Digital Cams are great for getting Images on Websites. There is no way I could replace my Wet Darkroom with a Digital Camera other than to make a living with Digital Imaging. I prefer to digitize my Negatives and Chromes (Slides). There is a good use for Digital Imaging Technology; however nothing can replace the feeling of the Wet Darkroom. For those who can not appreciate the creative process of the Wet Darkroom, they will never know what they are truly missing out on. What can replace the feeling of seeing your creation come out of a Film Developing Tanks or see your Prints come up in the Developer tray? The Digital Cam is just too sterile for me. The Space Age has finally caught up with Photography. | > ... every bit as important and legitimate a means | > of [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] | theory anyway) which is a very strange anomoly. Maybe, just lazy I | suppose... oops ... sent one twice, again ... sigh. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, 2219 Gerrard Street East, unit #1, Toronto M4E 2C8 Canada. --- voice 416-686-0326 lloyd AT the-wire DOT com http://www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ >oops ... sent one twice, again ... Strange - as long as I can remember, that's never happened to you before, and you don't use Outlook Express, which is almost always the culprit in multiple postings. A bug in the new version of Agent? >>oops ... sent one twice, again ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >A bug in the new version of Agent? feb2004 from Lloyd Erlick, Probably just me fumbling around with it. I just downloaded the free version of agent 2.0, and I've been playing with it. No pay, no filters ... regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, 2219 Gerrard Street East, unit #1, Toronto M4E 2C8 Canada. --- voice 416-686-0326 lloyd AT the-wire DOT com http://www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.