 |
 | 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 / October 2006large format darkroom
In the process of making serious investments to outfit a large format darkroom and would appreciate discussion regarding such. Is large format going the way of digital? Am I spinning my wheels? > In the process of making serious investments to outfit a large format > darkroom and would appreciate discussion regarding such. Is large format > going the way of digital? Am I spinning my wheels? If you expect to "go downtown" and buy a box of film, a box of paper and a bunch of bottles of chemicals, then this would be a good time to not get started. If you don't mind ordering from one or two places that may or may not have in stock what you want and waiting a few months for it, then this is a wonderful time as a lot of people are giving up and selling off cheaply. It depends upon how quickly you want things and how much you are willing to invest in things you will use three to six months from now. Some people are, some are not. Which are you? Geoff.  SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ > In the process of making serious investments to outfit a large format > darkroom and would appreciate discussion regarding such. Is large format > going the way of digital? Am I spinning my wheels? If you want something, there's really no tomorrow. Consider that a huge amount of photographers try it (LF) and give up relatively quickly only to sell all the LF gear. Once they figure out being AA or E Weston requires commitment and work. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com trebor spake thus: > In the process of making serious investments to outfit a large format > darkroom and would appreciate discussion regarding such. Is large format > going the way of digital? Yes, but ever so slowly; it'll be years before digital gets to where LF is today. And the cost is still prohibitive by comparison. > Am I spinning my wheels? To paraphrase the Firesign Theater, it's metaphysically impossible to answer that question. Seriously, though: the main problem with LF currently is not equipment (which is getting cheaper and cheaper, at least on the used market), but the materials (film & paper), which are getting harder to find. Still available, though. SignatureIn order to embark on a new course, the only one that will solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah. Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace. - Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. (http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html) > In the process of making serious investments to outfit a large format > darkroom and would appreciate discussion regarding such. Is large format > going the way of digital? Am I spinning my wheels? Your investment will be so very tiny compared to what it would have been only ten years ago - five pennies on the dollar for hardware. Oh, and darkness is still free. > In the process of making serious investments to outfit a large format > darkroom and would appreciate discussion regarding such. Is large format > going the way of digital? Am I spinning my wheels? Not at all. As it has been mentioned, cost and quality wise large format still wins. I'm still waiting for my "affordable" digital back for my field camera! If you're doing this for the commercial aspect of photography, then you'd probably want to have a digital setup. Being a large format darkroom person, I can say there's still some nice film and papers out there. I say give it a go. Sam Reeves SignatureSam Reeves Photography Pacific Grove, California Website <http://www.samreevesphoto.com> ...Am I spinning my wheels?... August 28, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, If you make judgments about your own life according to the behaviour of others, then maybe you're spinning your wheels. If you like something and plan to continue doing it even though others are stopping (perhaps because they do not like it the way you do ...) then maybe your wheels have good traction. It seems doubtful film will go out of production entirely. Artists' oils are still made even though acrylics dominate the market; film will become an expensive artist's material made by a few small niche suppliers. And the darkroom gear seems to be dropping to very attractive prices lately... for buyers, at least. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > In the process of making serious investments to outfit a large format > darkroom and would appreciate discussion regarding such. To give any sort of meaningful answer I think we need to know what are you planning to do and why you are planning to do it. Hobby or work? Need or desire? I do it because I like making images with my hands -- getting involved in more than pushing a button and letting an ink-jet do all the work. Some take up watercolors, I took up photography; it was not a reasoned, practical decision. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > I took up photography; it was not a reasoned, practical decision. Otherwise you might have been a Proctologist ;-) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > I do it because I like making images with my hands -- getting > involved in more than pushing a button and letting an ink-jet > do all the work. Some take up watercolors, I took up > photography; it was not a reasoned, practical decision. My inkjet doesn't do any of the work. If all goes well, it prints the image I give it. The work is in making that image as good as it can be. The "digital darkroom" is no less challenging than the analog one. It's just a different set of challenges. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > My inkjet doesn't do any of the work. followed immediately by: >If all goes well, it prints the image I give it. Say what? Ken > The "digital darkroom" is no less challenging than the analog > one. It's just a different set of challenges. Should Read between quotez "Boar with tits." SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > > I do it because I like making images with my hands -- getting > > involved in more than pushing a button and letting an ink-jet [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com There's no such thing as a "digital" darkroom. The term is an oyxmoron, since in PS you deal strictly with data manipulation. No darkroom involved. Course after being absent from this nsg for 6 months + I see rafe and company are still trying to rewrite the charter for r.p.d... > Course after being absent from this nsg for 6 > months + I see rafe and company are still trying > to rewrite the charter for r.p.d... I would have let it slide, but when someone sez "let the inkjet do the work," -- well, that's just ignorant. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > > Course after being absent from this nsg for 6 > > months + I see rafe and company are still trying > > to rewrite the charter for r.p.d... > > I would have let it slide, but when someone sez > "let the inkjet do the work," -- well, that's just ignorant. Most long time posters in this newsgroup (trolls excepted) seem rather well educated and informed about both photo and digital processes. Anyway appears to me he was merely stating his personal preference for printing wet -- i.e., the creative challenge of making handmade photographs one by one (a process otherwise known as phos graphos.) In my experience no two prints from the same negative are ever exactly alike (which makes them valuable and unique), as opposed to a digital image where once ready for output (given the monitor -> printer is properly calibrated) you can simply push button carbon copy inkjets till the cows come home and don't even have to be in the room except to refill the ink. My point being watching the image emerge from a chemical soup is a primordial allure for many... Interesting testimonials about darkrooms @ http://www.freestylephoto.biz/importanceofdarkroom.php The Importance of the Darkroom In Photographic Education Dan Burkholder's: "One of the first things new photography students learn is that "photography" means writing with light. If we are to take to heart that true and oh-so-accurate definition, we must let students witness the near-cosmic alchemy that was both the birth of the medium and a continuing, vital artistic component. That means film, paper, chemistry and a darkroom. Simple things that let the magic happen.....As I write this, my platinum-palladium chemistry is mixed, the potassium oxalate is hot, the print dryer humming and the humidifier steaming. Moments from now I'll slide a handmade print into the developer and watch the magic show, just as I have for more than three decades. There is a special thrill to making a handmade print in the classic darkroom. Part of the rush is owing to Photography's 170-year heritage shaped by light, chemistry and paper. And part is taking a quiet step back from the electronic hive that has so invaded much of our modern life. Since our job as educators is to infect our students with enthusiasm and hunger for knowledge, we can tap into this excitement by making photography more than yet another computer-based exercise. If you've ever seen the expression on a student's face as they watch their first black and white print develop before their eyes, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. And if you haven't, then it's time you did." >My point being watching the image emerge from a >chemical soup is a primordial allure for many... Fine. But I'm not "many" and I don't pretend to speak for them. I've been there and done that, and as a fifteen year old, it really was magic. That was a looong time ago. These days I get my "primordial allures" in other places, eg., on a mountaintop on the Appalachian Trail, miles from nowhere. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > miles from nowhere. > > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com Some may be tempted into saying they prefer you there as well :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:42:12 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >Some may be tempted into saying they prefer you there as well :) ROTFLMAO !!!!!! == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:42:12 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >Some may be tempted into saying they prefer you there as well :) Heh. I'd get a friendlier reception from the rattlers and copperheads than I'd get from you and Tom. For sure. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:42:12 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" > <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com It wasn't a personal insult. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >>Some may be tempted into saying they prefer you there as well :) > >Heh. I'd get a friendlier reception from the rattlers >and copperheads than I'd get from you and Tom. >For sure. Yes and Clem and Levi want to speak with you as well !! (background="Bueling_Bajos.mp3") Rot row ! == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net John spake thus: >>>Some may be tempted into saying they prefer you there as well :) >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (background="Bueling_Bajos.mp3") Ding-ding-ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ... > Rot row ! Real "Southren hospitality", eh, John? SignatureSave the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) >> Rot row ! > >Real "Southren hospitality", eh, John? There are parts of the south I personally wouldn't venture into after dark. And I'm a straight Caucasian WASP. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net > >My point being watching the image emerge from a > >chemical soup is a primordial allure for many... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and as a fifteen year old, it really was magic. > That was a looong time ago. Sounds like someone who says "gee, I had sex once with a real person but don't need it anymore...just give me a battery powered vibrator" :^) Photography ain't computers, anymore than sex is an electrical device... > These days I get my "primordial allures" in > other places, eg., on a mountaintop on the > Appalachian Trail, miles from nowhere. Well, I've climbed a lot higher than that. Many climbing buds I have been on Aconcagua and even Everest. And I STILL love seeing a print I just exposed from a negative, made in camera, develop in the tray. Just like summiting a high peak for the first time... PS crap leaves weary and blurry eyed -- drained of both physical and creative energy from staring at a CRT/LCD. I'd rather have a real orgasm and a real photograph... Tom Phillips spake thus: > PS crap leaves weary and blurry eyed -- drained of > both physical and creative energy from staring at > a CRT/LCD. I'd rather have a real orgasm and a real > photograph... So I guess we can now recognize Tom Phillips as the E. Hemingway of the darkroom boys, eh? A man's man, and all that. SignatureSave the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) > Save the Planet > Kill Yourself > > - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) Have you considered their advice? > A man's man, and all that. Watch out Tom ! I think you've peaked someones interests ! == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net John spake thus: >>A man's man, and all that. > > Watch out Tom ! I think you've peaked someones interests ! Nah, definitely not my type. (By the way, if you peeked at a dictionary, you'd see it's "piqued".) SignatureSave the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) >Well, I've climbed a lot higher than that. What a child. What an imbecile you can be, Tom. You continue to impress, that way. rafe b Raphael Bustin spake thus: >>Well, I've climbed a lot higher than that. > > What a child. What an imbecile you > can be, Tom. You continue to impress, > that way. Count on him to turn the discussion into a pissing contest. OK, Tom; you win. SignatureSave the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) > >Well, I've climbed a lot higher than that. > > What a child. What an imbecile you > can be, Tom. You continue to impress, > that way. I'm neither impressed with inkjets or the Appalachian Trail... >I'm neither impressed with inkjets or the Appalachian Trail... I don't recall asking for your impressions on either subject. Your obsession with sexuality and implicit competition is noted, however. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > >I'm neither impressed with inkjets or the Appalachian Trail... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Your obsession with sexuality and implicit > competition is noted, however. And your obsession with turning every thread into a digital equipment debate and/or taking other people's comments out of context is wearing thin. My point was just as you've probably never kissed a real girl (virtual replacements don't count...) you seem to have never made a real photograph and are incapable of understanding why those of us who do prefer it. >I'm neither impressed with inkjets or the Appalachian Trail... The Trail has some pretty slippery rocks ;>) == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net > >I'm neither impressed with inkjets or the Appalachian Trail... > > The Trail has some pretty slippery rocks ;>) Rafe must have slipped on some minus his climbing helmet...he should go to the web page I posted and find out why 90% of those professional photographers and photography teachers prefer making real photographs in a real darkroom and why you if you don't you don't understand photography... > In the process of making serious investments to outfit a large format > darkroom and would appreciate discussion regarding such. Is large format > going the way of digital? Am I spinning my wheels? If you are near south carolina i will give you what i have I think you can forget large format darkroom and go direct to large format inkjet printing. Results are wonderful, waste are about nuts, and you can work in daylight. I recommend EPSON 4800, 7800 9800 depending of the largest format you need. Best regards. Robert AUDRIT > In the process of making serious investments to outfit a large format > darkroom and would appreciate discussion regarding such. Is large format > going the way of digital? Am I spinning my wheels? >Results are wonderful, waste are about nuts, and you can work in daylight. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What does this mean? - ----------------------------------------------------------- les clark / edgewater, nj / usa ----------------------------------------------------------- >>Results are wonderful, waste are about nuts, and you can work in daylight. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What > does this mean? Better yet, what's a "Boar with tits?" Oh wait, I guess that question should be directed at Mr. blank. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com rafe b spake thus: > Better yet, what's a "Boar with tits?" > Oh wait, I guess that question should be directed at Mr. blank. Dunno if your query is serious, but in case it is, the pungent American expression "tits on a bull" refers to something extraordinarily useless. I think this is what Mr. Blank (probably soused, as he is wont to be posting here lately it would seem) was after. Just thought ya might want to know. SignatureIn order to embark on a new course, the only one that will solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah. Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace. - Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. (http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html) It means that with chemical printing , every job is different, and you need to run tests and waste paper. With digital printing, once you have balanced the monitor, the printer and the paper, every print is ok, without any waste. Regards. Robert > >Results are wonderful, waste are about nuts, and you can work in daylight. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > les clark / edgewater, nj / usa > ----------------------------------------------------------- > It means that with chemical printing , every job is different, and you need > to run tests and waste paper. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > les clark / edgewater, nj / usa > > ----------------------------------------------------------- Yes but that paper and chemistry combined for those with table top processors runs around 50 to 75 cents a 8x10 sheet, versus the multiple dollar amount for inkjet printing. Its all the same on an uncalibrated system in terms of tests. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > Yes but that paper and chemistry combined for those with table top > processors runs around 50 to 75 cents a 8x10 sheet, versus the multiple > dollar amount for inkjet printing. Its all the same on an uncalibrated > system in terms of tests. Multi-dollar for an 8x10" sheet? What are you printing on? rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:48:10 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >Yes but that paper and chemistry combined for those with table top >processors runs around 50 to 75 cents a 8x10 sheet, versus the multiple >dollar amount for inkjet printing. Its all the same on an uncalibrated >system in terms of tests. The 50 cent figure is very close. That's $50.00 for 100 8x10's. What's the paper & ink cost for 100 digital prints at home? Plus, with today's RA-4 paper & chemistry, there's not a lot of need for endless test prints. Today's films, papers and chemistry are remarkably consistent in color balance. I start with my standard filtration settings, and four 4x5 test prints on one 8x10 sheet are all I need to dial everything in for any given photo session. Not to mention that I'm not constantly upgrading my digital camera, computer hardware & software, and printer. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I outfitted a "large format" B&W darkroom for less than $300. $75 for a used Omega DII. Probably another $100 for acquiring various parts (negative carriers, new hardware, another condenser set, etc). $125 for other various things. Laundry room is my darkroom. I've seen very high quality B&W inkjets and they are indeed nice. A $500 Epson printer can make a nice print if 13" wide is ok. My problem is that my 4x5" scanner is a consumer flatbed (Epson 4990) that just doesn't cut it for making very high quality prints. With my $75 enlarger, I can make stunning prints without buying an insanely expensive scanner. --Mike > In the process of making serious investments to outfit a large format > darkroom and would appreciate discussion regarding such. Is large format > going the way of digital? Am I spinning my wheels? > I've seen very high quality B&W inkjets and they are indeed nice. A $500 > Epson printer can make a nice print if 13" wide is ok. My problem is that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > With my $75 enlarger, I can make stunning prints without buying an > insanely expensive scanner. If you're scanning MF or LF film, you should be able to make excellent 13x19" prints with that 4990 scanner. I make 24x30" prints (from 4x5 negatives) that are tack-sharp, corner-to-corner -- with a 4990 as the scanner. If we rate the 4990 an *honest* 2000 dpi -- then with MF film, say 6x6 cm, you'll have about 4700 x 4700 pixels, enough for an excellent 13x19" print. With 4x5 scanned at 2400, you end up with over 100 million pixels. The problem is that the 4990 is marginal with 35mm. And in any case, 13x19" from 35 mm is iffy -- that's 13x (or 19x) enlargement. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.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
|
©2008 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.