 |
 | 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 / January 2005Leaving the Wet Darkroom?
First, I did think long and hard about posting this to R.P.Digital but after looking at the posts there, I decided that I needed the advice of people who were more involved in the wet process. I have contributed to many of the analog newsgroups for years so please try not to flame me. I have been involved with photography as a hobby for years and I have a 125 square foot plumbed darkroom in the basement that has given me long hours of enjoyment. I have been a follower of the zone system as well using my trusty Crown Graphic, Mamiya 330, Mamiya 7, and an old Moskva folder, shooting many negatives and printing them on my D5XL. I have even dabbled in color. Lately with the addition of two children to the mix (2 years old and 4 months old) I have not had nearly enough time (read none) to pursue printing in the darkroom. I still shoot black and white and have a stack of negatives that have gone unprinted. I recently dragged my old $199 flatbed scanner with the film adapter lid and scanned those negatives just to see them, and discovered that there were many shots I would love to print. Some serendipity through work allowed me to recently acquire a G5 dual processor Mac. Of course the cheapo scanner doesn't do any justice to the negatives (but mind you, I was pretty impressed anyway). I am contemplating getting a dedicated film scanner (such as the Nikon 8000, which from what I read is a bit older but not significantly worse than the Nikon 9000, and a lot cheaper used) and scanning these and any future negatives I create and creating a completely digital workflow from that point on. The questions I have are: 1. Output. What are your thoughts on how to create black and white prints digitally? Do they have the feel of real prints; the gloss of the paper, Dmax, contrast, tone? Who makes them and how are they made - are people exposing real B&W or C paper to digital light and processing them, versus giant inkjet printers? Longevity? Do they carry the drama, or emotion of a print? Does the "art" come through? 2. Giving up B&W film. I am still able to process my B&W film myself with my Jobo, but from what I am reading I am tempted to just shoot C41 film and have it professionally souped. I would still want to print black and white but it seems the color information is useful in generating grayscale images in Photoshop, and eliminate the need to commit to a specific lens filter color. A grayscale scanned and printed C41 shot would have a specific "look" to it (grain wise) that may be different than some specific pure B&W technique, but it would be a look possibly worthy unto itself. This would keep my hands totally dry. 3. Giving up instant gratification. Obviously there is some pleasure in seeing and handling your finished product immediately when you are done. I'd have to wait until that big envelope (or tube) came in the mail to see what I had created. But if I could reliably see what I was going to get on the screen it would be liveable. How easy is it to profile a serivce's prints. Can you display, print and calibrate some sort of step wedge so you have some idea of what white, black, and all the greys will look like with some degree of accuracy. Are people generally happy with what comes in the mail 2 weeks later based on what they had been visualizing on the monitor. It would eliminate the 20 or so prints I usually have to make before I am happy. 4. Being able to feel I run a color darkroom as well. I have tried RA4 and been pretty happy with the results, but the process didn't thrill me. And I felt there was less for me to control, so I kept up just bringing my color negs to a lab and getting prints. But digitally I feel I'd be more involved in the final output and have more possible manipulations. Again, how easy is it to calibrate to an outside printing service so I am not disappointed with the final results I get. Thanks for letting me rant. Any thoughts on all of this? Has anyone made the switch and are you as happy? I know I'll miss the process, even the smell, but I want to get back into photography but just cannot get back down into the darkroom right now. -Joshua Wein B&W negatives (except C-41 films) do not scan well. It would be a waste of time. B&W film is intended for a wet darkroom. Why is this? It would seem that scanning at some high bit value would allow some expansion of the values into full white to black despite the fact that the negative probably exists within a total 2.0 Dmin-Dmax range. Also wouldn't you think you could recalibrate a zone system to take into account the fact that the negative is going to be scanned. Right now I develop so Zone VIII is a density of 1.35 - this is probably not dense enough to efficiently transmit the info fully to the scanner. I could recalibrate a processing time/temp so maybe zone 8 would be 2.5 or even 3.0 if the scanner can read up to 4.2. -Josh "Why is this? It would seem that scanning at some high bit value would allow some expansion of the values into full white to black despite the fact that the negative probably exists within a total 2.0 Dmin-Dmax range. Also wouldn't you think you could recalibrate a zone system to take into account the fact that the negative is going to be scanned. Right now I develop so Zone VIII is a density of 1.35 - this is probably not dense enough to efficiently transmit the info fully to the scanner. I could recalibrate a processing time/temp so maybe zone 8 would be 2.5 or even 3.0 if the scanner can read up to 4.2." Because B&W negatives are SILVER. Scanners are made to work with DYE negatives and slides. > Because B&W negatives are SILVER. Scanners are made to work with DYE > negatives and slides. Interestingly enough, digital imaging sensors are native monochrome. It might be interesting to see what one could do with a sensor made without RGB filters. It might achieve higher resolution. "uraniumcommittee" stated: "... Because B&W negatives are SILVER. Scanners are made to work with DYE negatives and slides. ..." What a load of hokum ... WRONG. In my particular case, I scan the silver negs as color and get better tones. If I scan in grey the highlights get blown out. Scan as if color neg then convert in Photoshop. > "uraniumcommittee" stated: > "... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What a load of hokum ... WRONG. > In my particular case, I scan the silver negs as color and get better > tones. > If I scan in grey the highlights get blown out. Scan as if color neg then > convert in Photoshop. Have you tried 16-bit mode greyscale scans? Yes I just did a 16bit grey scale on my Epson 2450 with slight tweeking then into Photoshop and it looks very good. No blown highlights. thanks. I will work in this file and then the real test will be when I make the gallery rounds with "darkroom" and "Computer" prints. Yours, Tom > > In my particular case, I scan the silver negs as color and get better > > tones. > > If I scan in grey the highlights get blown out. Scan as if color neg then > > convert in Photoshop. > > Have you tried 16-bit mode greyscale scans? > "Why is this? It would seem that scanning at some high bit value would > allow some expansion of the values into full white to black despite the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Because B&W negatives are SILVER. Scanners are made to work with DYE > negatives and slides. Not true in my experience. What doesn't work with silver negatives is Digital ICE, which relies in infrared light, which doesn't penetrate such negatives. Otherwise, the scans come out fine. With some scanners, such as my Minolta, you have to tell the scanner it is scanning color slide film to get a good result from the B&W neg, but once that setting is used, you get a full-toned scan of the negative. Don't take this as a flame but I am passionate about darkrooms and have been at this a while, too. I processed my first roll of film in 1967, I didn't have a timer or tanks. I shut myself in the bathroom and stuffed towels under the door. For a timer I had my younger brother on the other side of the door calling out the times while I seesawed a roll of 127 film shot in my Brownie Starmite through soup bowls of Dektol, Indicator Stop and Kodak Fixer (the old Tri-Chem pack), I made contact prints on Velox and ferrotyped them on the window in my bathroom. I now own four enlargers and practically every piece of darkroom equipment known to man, it's not quite as much fun as it was back then, but the darkroom is the place I like best when I want to get in touch with me. There's nothing wrong with the concept of a digital darkroom. My darkroom is a place I go to get away from my wife, kids, computer, etc. If I sit in front of the PC scanning I am forever getting interrupted, but my family leaves me alone when I am in the darkroom. I do both wet and digital darkroom, I also own two film scanners, several flatbed scanners, 9 PC's (or so, I build 'em so I have enough parts to make a couple more) several inkjet printers and a dyesub printer. As far as converting C-41 to black and white, I haven't seen much produced yet that didn't look like C-41 converted to black and white--it just ain't the same. Much like colorized versions of film noire movies; you're making a sow's ear from a silk purse. Shooting black and white and the choices we make before making the negative are parts of the creative process. C-41 (and digital even more so) is a slice of life, it's a faithful moment recorded from the real world, it's Kool-aid, it's malt liquor, it's Muzak. Black and white is abstraction, it's essence, fingernails on a blackboard, single malt scotch, the sweet breath of your little child, it's jazz, baby. To paraphrase Jack Kennedy, we don't do these things because they are easy, rather, we go into the darkroom because it is hard. Let me know when you have your garage sale. To answer your questions in order. 1. Black and white output, it's possible to make pretty good prints using inkjet printers, I use a Epson C82 and print using only the black ink and get fair results. Plenty good for most applications. Expect to make lots of prints, just like in the wet darkroom, you can get subtle here, too, plus you have curves as well as contrast that you can mess with. The digital paper printers print to either color or black and white RA-4 paper, I actually prefer inkjet prints to RC. The medium is different, in the same sense that photography should not try to be painting, digital printing should not mimic it's brother from the wet darkroom. If you're an artist, then it's all Art. 2. See my semi-rant above. I still haven't seen much B&W conversion that didn't look converted, ditto for digital camera conversions. You just don't (and can't) light color like you would black and white. It's not bad, just not the same. 3. Shoot digital and you'll get the most immediate gratification ever. You won't have piles of negatives to play with on winter days, you'll probably throw out everything that doesn't immediately seduce you. Profiling monitors and printers and scanners gets easier all the time. And cheaper, the hardware cost isn't much more than the price of a good color analyzer or a new lens. 4. The best cheap digital prints are the ones you get from Walmart (seriously) unless you want to take the time to learn color management. The easiest way to shoot color digitally is to buy a digital camera, it already has a great color profile and will make life much easier.  Signaturedarkroommike ---------- > First, I did think long and hard about posting this to R.P.Digital but > after looking at the posts there, I decided that I needed the advice of [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > -Joshua Wein > To paraphrase Jack Kennedy, we don't do these things because > they are easy, rather, we go into the darkroom because it is hard. "...because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept..." Ken Thanks for the thoughtful response. I realize that going down into the darkroom is not going to happen for a while. So I figure I do it this way for now at least, or don't do it at all. I have one specific negative that I had been working on making a 20x24 print from about a year ago, and after about 25 prints I had one I was happy with. I think I'll pay to have that negative scanned and play and have a print made from various sites and see what I think before I plunk down $1,500 or so for a scanner. -Josh Josh, I wouldn't give away the analog equipment just yet. To 'burn that bridge' may be regrettable in the future. See my comments after your questions. > The questions I have are: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > them, versus giant inkjet printers? Longevity? Do they carry the drama, > or emotion of a print? Does the "art" come through? Only you can judge this. See for your self if a print, your favorite print, can be professionally printed using digital methods to your satisfaction. It's the only way to judge for your self. > 2. Giving up B&W film. I am still able to process my B&W film myself > with my Jobo, but from what I am reading I am tempted to just shoot C41 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different than some specific pure B&W technique, but it would be a look > possibly worthy unto itself. This would keep my hands totally dry. I ask this question of people over and over. You especially are a target of this question seeing as you already own everything you need. My question is why trust your film (precious?) to someone else? C-41 and E-6 processing is as easy to process as B&W. IMHO even easier as there are less variables to play with. Time/Temp/Chems are always used the same way. Using Color film and then digitizing and printing may hold some advantages, not the least of which is it may look better in color. > 3. Giving up instant gratification. Obviously there is some pleasure in > seeing and handling your finished product immediately when you are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they had been visualizing on the monitor. It would eliminate the 20 or > so prints I usually have to make before I am happy. Semi instant gratification aside in the wet darkroom, I, personally do not feel the image is completely mine if I leave a (major?) portion of the image construction to someone else. That 'sub-contractor' must be able to reproduce my wishes exactly. Here's a question, did you ever print an image that you cropped and thought was perfect on the contact sheet/easel only to look at the working print and say, 'yuck'? I have many times and re-cropped the image and made a much better print. You won't have that advantage when you send it out to be done. Additionally, it is possible that each machine/operator is 'calibrated' differently and therefore your standard will have some movement. > 4. Being able to feel I run a color darkroom as well. I have tried RA4 > and been pretty happy with the results, but the process didn't thrill [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > manipulations. Again, how easy is it to calibrate to an outside > printing service so I am not disappointed with the final results I get. Less control? I don't think so. Sure maybe on the chemical side of the house, but how many green (or other color shifts) people have you seen from family gatherings in batch processed prints? If you're like me, tons! You have a fair amount of control on the image. Color, saturation, and to some degree contrast (that's whay Kodak makes three types of color paper). I will not deny that digitally, color gives you more control. > Thanks for letting me rant. Any thoughts on all of this? Has anyone > made the switch and are you as happy? I know I'll miss the process, > even the smell, but I want to get back into photography but just cannot > get back down into the darkroom right now. Don't give up yet. Rather, use the advantages of both. The pleasure factor is very important to me. That satisfaction is not going to be replaced by opening a mailing tube. Jim Thanks - if it was up to my wife all the darkroom stuff would be long gone. "come on honey, you're never going to use it again" etc. I do indend on keeping it if anything it wouldn't generate much in the way of cash when sold so it's not worth selling. And of course there are things that may need a trip down there, or I may find the time. I do plan on getting a scan made of a favorite negative and seeing what I think. Kodak now makes an RC silver based paper processed in B&W chemicals specifically for digital printers. I think it mey be tonable as well. Gonna give that a try. -Josh >1. Output. What are your thoughts on how to create black and white >prints digitally? Do they have the feel of real prints; the gloss of >the paper, Dmax, contrast, tone? Who makes them and how are they made - >are people exposing real B&W or C paper to digital light and processing >them, versus giant inkjet printers? Longevity? Do they carry the drama, >or emotion of a print? Does the "art" come through? I'm happy with the quality and prices at White House Custom Color, http://whcc.com/ , and Mpix, http://mpix.com/ . >2. Giving up B&W film. I am still able to process my B&W film myself >with my Jobo, but from what I am reading I am tempted to just shoot C41 >film and have it professionally souped. I'm much happier doing my own B&W film. Every so often, I'll shoot a roll of C41. Just often enough to remind me how frustrating it is dealing with minute scratches and dust. Have hardly any problems when I soup my own. >Are people >generally happy with what comes in the mail 2 weeks later based on what >they had been visualizing on the monitor. It would eliminate the 20 or >so prints I usually have to make before I am happy. Yes. I've gone to a digital process for printing from my negatives because I don't always have several hours in a row I can spend in the darkroom without interruption. -- Eric http://canid.com/ Thsnks - I looked at the mpix web site and I am intrigued by the Digital B&W paper they use - actual silver based. I figure I'll get my local very trustworthy lab to do my processing, more expensive than the big-box stores but definitely worth it. -Josh >Any thoughts on all of this? Yeah 1) Digital isn't stable so you will be leaving your children a lot of pretty bad prints. 2) If you think that working in the darkroom is time consuming wait until you play with digital ! Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Father of Sean (3) and Erin (18m) My intent though is to have digital prints made on standard chemical process paper. Wouldn't they be as stable as prints from film? Especially if I use Kodak's new silver based digital paper which I just learned exists. I was using RC paper in my darkroom anyway, I never had the desire to switch to FB. And I do agree that digial can be time consuming - but you can jump in and out of it, and my computer is right in the kitchen out in the open. I used to disappear into the darkroom and be totally out of it. Thanks -Josh > My intent though is to have digital prints made on standard chemical > process paper. Wouldn't they be as stable as prints from film? > Especially if I use Kodak's new silver based digital paper which I just > learned exists. I was using RC paper in my darkroom anyway, I never had > the desire to switch to FB. FB is "Wet Darkroom". If you are not using FB at least sometimes for Fine Printing you should go to digital and join the rest of the hobbiests it just will make some of our work more $$$ and important...., IMOP. But then I wouldn't "Not" print on FB. > And I do agree that digial can be time consuming - but you can jump in > and out of it, and my computer is right in the kitchen out in the open. > I used to disappear into the darkroom and be totally out of it. If you don't have the time, you don't have it - you'll see there's little difference. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >And I do agree that digial can be time consuming - but you can jump in >and out of it, and my computer is right in the kitchen out in the open. >I used to disappear into the darkroom and be totally out of it. Ts exactly the reason why I like the darkroom a lot better after a stressy week at work. Gilbert _____________ http://www.apug.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15 Voor fans van films >>And I do agree that digial can be time consuming - but you can jump in >>and out of it, and my computer is right in the kitchen out in the open. >>I used to disappear into the darkroom and be totally out of it. >Ts exactly the reason why I like the darkroom a lot better after a >stressy week at work. >Gilbert I'll say. I do nothing but compute all day every day at work and my idea of recreation is not spending even MORE time in front of a phosphor screen. >>>And I do agree that digial can be time consuming - but you can jump in >>>and out of it, and my computer is right in the kitchen out in the open. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'll say. I do nothing but compute all day every day at work and my idea of > recreation is not spending even MORE time in front of a phosphor screen. Amen to that. I find darkroom work very relaxing. Sitting in front of a computer screen for long periods just turns me into a zombie. Simon. Disipline, is what it takes. I still have my darkroom, I'm a professional, and when in there, yes out of contact with the rest of the family, kids, grandkids etc. Sometimes that is a good thing, like going on a retreat in the mountains, well not exactly but you get the point. On the other hand my grandson, 11, likes to make prints for his mom and I like the interaction. It is then not about making the perfect print but loving my grandson. cheers, tom > >>>And I do agree that digial can be time consuming - but you can jump in > >>>and out of it, and my computer is right in the kitchen out in the open. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Simon. How nice what you say Tom. Many kids wont never know what a red light is. > Disipline, is what it takes. I still have my darkroom, I'm a professional, > and when in there, yes out of contact with the rest of the family, kids, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > > Simon. >How nice what you say Tom. Many kids wont never know what a red light is. I believe that there will be many more generations of photographers who use a wet darkroom. My wife and I teach an intro photo class (with wet darkroom) for kids - it is very popular, and I don't think that these kids think of the computer as an either/or proposition - it is just another tool. > I believe that there will be many more generations of photographers > who use a wet darkroom. My wife and I teach an intro photo class > (with wet darkroom) for kids - it is very popular, and I don't think > that these kids think of the computer as an either/or proposition - it > is just another tool. This is my experience also. Recently I offered to teach the Boy Scout Photography merit badge to the scouts in my son's local troop. I went around to each asking individually regarding preferences just to gauge interest. Guess what? Almost to a person, when given the choice of completing the requirements using a digital camera (where they could just email me the results) or a film camera (where the film option included darkroom sessions at my house for film and print development), the boys enthusiastically chose the "dinosaur" darkroom option. They're reasoning? According to them, that "everyone had a digital camera, but I've never seen a darkroom." How times have changed... Ken > > I believe that there will be many more generations of photographers > > who use a wet darkroom. My wife and I teach an intro photo class [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Ken Well I can tell you the majority perception of clients I deal with is digital sucks. And that's not my doing. >Well I can tell you the majority perception of clients I deal with is >digital sucks. And that's not my doing. I believe that this perception will increase with time, not because digital does actually suck, but because photographers who suck will increasingly use digital. Film, requiring a bit more contemplative approach will end up being used only by those who are approaching photography more seriously. > >Well I can tell you the majority perception of clients I deal with is > >digital sucks. And that's not my doing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > approach will end up being used only by those who are approaching > photography more seriously. I picked up my first DSLR mainly to have it as an option for some clients, this way I don't loose business and can give the client the choice. But I am not given to pushing digital. I can?t be so sure. The digital?s punch is that is cheap and fast (the hits of this age). I mean it?s going to be more affordable to new generations of photographers to use digital. Almost each home has a pc, but it?s not easy to have an own darkroom. > >Well I can tell you the majority perception of clients I deal with is > >digital sucks. And that's not my doing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > approach will end up being used only by those who are approaching > photography more seriously. > I can?t be so sure. The digital?s punch is that is cheap and fast (the hits > of this age). I mean it?s going to be more affordable to new generations of > photographers to use digital. Almost each home has a pc, but it?s not easy > to have an own darkroom. You mean hobbyists, fewer and fewer people will earn any kind of a living doing photo. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 ... >You mean hobbyists, fewer and fewer people will earn any kind of a >living doing photo. ... jan1305 from Lloyd Erlick, Finally! I am at last in a vanguard! regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- The difference for me is in the experience. Darkroom work feels like "craft", while computer-aided imaging feels like "engineering". Chris Ellinger Ann Arbor, MI USA > The difference for me is in the experience. Darkroom work feels like > "craft", while computer-aided imaging feels like "engineering". > > Chris Ellinger > Ann Arbor, MI > USA I think it feels worse than that, having worked in engineering I would rather work numbers sometimes than retouch, someone's face at 200% on a screen (Gives me the willies). > First, I did think long and hard about posting this to R.P.Digital but > after looking at the posts there, I decided that I needed the advice of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > folder, shooting many negatives and printing them on my D5XL. I have > even dabbled in color. Lucky you!!. I would love to have a real darkroom, but being in rental homes (usually apartments), I don't have the option to have a real darkroom. plus I would never be able to convince the missus to allow me to spend the money on an enlarger. As a result, I am doing some digital, some wet process. I process my own e6, c41 & b&w in a paterson tank. Once I have the neg or slide, I then get it scanned to CD on a Fuji Frontier (lucky enough to work at a place that does digital prints). With the resulting CD's I do editing in photoshop if i want to. Prints are either done at home on my epson photo 720, or at work on the lab. B&W's printed on the frontier don't seem to have the same contrast and feel as a b&w printed on b&w paper, but they are still quite acceptable. the frontier's prints are far superior to the epson (and much cheaper too). I have done some B&W's through a HP Photosmart 7960 which does a very nice job. > 1. Output. What are your thoughts on how to create black and white > prints digitally? Do they have the feel of real prints; the gloss of > the paper, Dmax, contrast, tone? Who makes them and how are they made - > are people exposing real B&W or C paper to digital light and processing > them, versus giant inkjet printers? Longevity? Do they carry the drama, > or emotion of a print? Does the "art" come through? IME they don't carry the "drama and emotion" of a true B&W. Prints on fuji crystal archive paper (colour paper) look good, and will last well, but I still think I prefer true b&w prints. For me though I don't have a cost effective option to produce real b&w's, so the fuji suffices nicely. > 2. Giving up B&W film. I am still able to process my B&W film myself > with my Jobo, but from what I am reading I am tempted to just shoot C41 > film and have it professionally souped. Sure, if you are happy to deal with scratches, fingerprints, etc etc. I started developing my own C41, because I wasn't happy with the results from labs (and the price). C41 B&W has a different feel to it than real B&W - I still don't know if I like it or not. >I would still want to print > black and white but it seems the color information is useful in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > different than some specific pure B&W technique, but it would be a look > possibly worthy unto itself. This would keep my hands totally dry. If you are shooting colour film and converting it to B&W you will get a different feel again. There is one advantage of doing it this way - you can simulate the effects of different colour filters. You can see what looks better, a yellow or a red filter, for example. It won't be quite the same as shooting with B&W and a filter though. > 3. Giving up instant gratification. Obviously there is some pleasure in > seeing and handling your finished product immediately when you are > done. For me, the most exciting part of photography is opening my dev tank at the end of the process and seeing what is there. That's why I don't shoot digital from the outset. >I'd have to wait until that big envelope (or tube) came in the > mail to see what I had created. But if I could reliably see what I was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they had been visualizing on the monitor. It would eliminate the 20 or > so prints I usually have to make before I am happy. Many photo stores can now print direct from digital. I'd suggest building a relationship with someone in a local store so you don't have to wait 2 weeks to get your prints back. You should be able to find someone who'll work with you in regards to colour profiles etc. > 4. Being able to feel I run a color darkroom as well. I have tried RA4 > and been pretty happy with the results, but the process didn't thrill [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -Joshua Wein Justin Thyme stated: > For me, the most exciting part of photography is opening my dev tank at the > end of the process and seeing what is there. That's why I don't shoot > digital from the outset. You?re right, man. There?s nothing like turning the paper in the fixer and see your "creature" or looking how image pops up in the developper. Though we could find amazing the fact of a machine spitting ink on a paper?s surface I?m much more trhilled with the traditional wet process. anyone4tennis@hotmail.com wrote: > The questions I have are: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > them, versus giant inkjet printers? Longevity? Do they carry the drama, > or emotion of a print? Does the "art" come through? One advantage of the digital route is you can split the colour image into the various colour channels (Red, green, blue or cyan, yellow, magenta) and reduce to B&W that way or simply desaturate. Photographing on B&W film is cheaper and probably a lot sharper than C41 colour. E6 colour may be a different proposition. > 2. Giving up B&W film. I am still able to process my B&W film myself > with my Jobo, but from what I am reading I am tempted to just shoot C41 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different than some specific pure B&W technique, but it would be a look > possibly worthy unto itself. This would keep my hands totally dry. See above - channels will give far more options than grayscale. > 3. Giving up instant gratification. Obviously there is some pleasure in > seeing and handling your finished product immediately when you are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they had been visualizing on the monitor. It would eliminate the 20 or > so prints I usually have to make before I am happy. One thing I found with digital is the freedom to shoot loads of pictures - where I'd balk at shooting a roll of 36 on one sunset, firing off 50 or 60 digitals makes a lot of sense. > 4. Being able to feel I run a color darkroom as well. I have tried RA4 > and been pretty happy with the results, but the process didn't thrill [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > even the smell, but I want to get back into photography but just cannot > get back down into the darkroom right now. As far as I'm concerned, digital put life back into my hobby. Setting up a temp darkroom, fiddling with higher temperatures for colour and the sheer expense made wet darkrooms something to be loathed. Sitting in front of an iMac in my living room playing around with images I'd taken is much more comfortable and I haven't begun to experiment with all the options available with Photoshop. My A3 printer will produce a great enlargement very similar to a 16 x 20 and many stores are able to print off poster sized prints (A2 and bigger) while-U-wait. Going digital doesn't mean you lose out on the camera equipment - most Canon lenses fit the D-10 and D-20 and you'll get a 1.6x increase in power to all you lenses - that 500mm would become an 800mm lens. |
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.