After 40 years printing B&W in the darkroom and >20 years printing B&W on the desktop, I've concluded for myself that neither is better than the other, just different. That said, however, I've personally never made or seen a B&W inkjet print where the light seems to emanate from the paper or where water looks wet! B&W silver gelatin prints can reveal these characteristics when printed by a skilled worker. So, to this day I produce prints both ways, but my heart lies with darkroom prints.
I work in IT, so the last thing I want to do on my time off is spend more time in front the computer/tablet/phone/ect. Honestly, I doubt most people/photographers print out their work these days. Mostly it's just scans posted on IG, FB or X for clicks. I do it also...but the photos I do post I will try and print in the analog darkroom. Those prints that I'm making through the traditional darkroom process are special to me. I don't get that feeling printing that photo out on a printer. That's more like, "Wow, look what digital technology can do" but I don't feel attached to that work at all. That process will be even more watered down once AI takes full control. I will continue to stick with the analog printing as long as possible. I also will begin to experiment with Ambrotypes near future.
@@sbills You make a good point… not a lot of printing going on in general these days… kinda sad. I feel the same as you and get WAY more involved and attached to my darkroom prints. I do find a beautiful inkjet print beautiful just for my work not as special. Awesome to hear you getting into Ambrotypes… I plan on salt and platinum as well. It’s a time and set up thing 👍
@@Distphoto That’s awesome! Platinum prints are on my list also, but ever since I saw James Pearson’s video on the collodion process I’ve had my heart set on that. I’m planning on purchasing an 8x10 Intrepid as my entry into that world. BTW, if you haven’t seen the Pearson video go watch it, very cool stuff.
This is definitely good point, but... For darkroom printing, you need space, chemicals, enlarger, etc. And it is also time consuming, so thats not good for everybody. For me is much better to use as much time as possible to taking photos then preparing dark room and trying to print, so if I want to print something, I am using printer or professional services.
I was an army photographer back in the Neolithic film era. I also ran our Division’s darkroom. I developed thousands of rolls of B&W film, and made countless prints to the point that I could just look at the negatives and know what settings and time to use to make a print. It was a lot of work but I loved the job. My boss had exacting standards for the prints. They had to be perfect. They were for either publication or to be given to VIPs. Later I worked at a one hour photo lab. That was closer to making prints with a computer. We scanned the negatives and a print came out of the machine. But there was absolutely no photo manipulation. Just the images straight from the negatives. I didn’t quite like that. In college when I worked on programs like Photoshop I could manipulate the image in ways I could never do in the darkroom. I don’t like that for photography’s sake. It becomes something other than photography. Unless it was just working to enhance the image but not change it. Once it’s changed, to me it’s no longer a photograph. It looks like one, but it’s something else like art, and in some cases an abomination. Like taking some celebrity’s head and putting on another person’s body. There was some photo manipulation in the darkroom and with airbrushing etc. but nowhere near what you can do now. I made prints using a computer and printer, but it is nowhere near the same as making a print by hand and using every trick you know to create a great photograph worthy of framing. To me and this is my humble opinion that darkrooms film photography is real photography. Others can and may disagree.
My father is a landscape and wildlife photographer working very often in Black & White, and the quality he gets out of his Canon printers is nothing short of incredible. He prints on Moab rag paper, and the Canon printers have a whole bunch of grey cartridges in addition to black. He’s had print services attempt to recreate his end result with little success, and eventually ended up buying the large roll printer Canon equivalent to his smaller model. I’d say that the rag paper in matte finish that he uses has good depth, it feels like the ink is really IN the paper as opposed to gloss of semi-gloss. With museum glass, the contrast is also excellent with very deep blacks, uninterrupted by glare on the print surface or the lite. You mention dust as an issue with darkroom work… he has to dust his Moab paper, otherwise he prints in loose flecks and then they flake off after, leaving white specks, so inkjet is still a very physical process. He still prints smaller proofs before scaling up in order to nail his intended tonality. The most important thing with inkjet is not calling it “finished” when you like the cool picture you see on a screen. Too many photographers let their work down by not honing their inkjet skills. It IS still a skill, and farming it out to some print service is usually a disservice.
That is awesome. I fully agree that inkjet is a skill! One that I want to get better at. I have learned that it is much harder than most think or realize. The Natural Moab paper is my favorite paper to date. The one thing I dislike about it is the flecking or small white specks from the emulsion flaking off... I never considered it being dust on the surface, just thought it was super delicate. Thank you! I will give dusting the paper off a go and see if that helps!
In my teens and early twenties I did a lot of darkroom prints and developing my own b/w films. You know, that way I learned so many things about working with light and how to photograph to make a good final result in the darkroom that I was realy proud of. Now I am in my sixties and realise that the lessons I learned about photography in the analogue darkroom era are still of great value to me. I think I can still make good photo's with my digital equipment but I never have that proud feeling anymore over the results as I had in these earlier darkroom days.... Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this video.
@@Lightwriter1 I do feel proud of some of the digital images, it’s just more fleeting and definitely not the same. You are right though you can learn a lot from film photography and vice vera for digital. You still are working with light.
I learnt b&w processing in my teens and twenties, was even quite good at it. I started at home loading my films under the bedclothes but thé bedroom was sufficiently dark for an enlarger. It always was for pleasure, not for selling prints etc. Roll on a lot of décades and I passed to digital which to me is liké instant (polaroid). Having bought a cheap scanner to digitalisé old slides I joined a club - but they are entirely digital! I have never yet succeeded in making a satisfactory b&w inkjet print and scanning leaves me a bit cold. For thé cost of PS, Lightroom, décent printer, calibration of thé monitor etc I can have a lot more pleasure printing and I don't have to bang my head against a rebellious computer. Making a print is thé pleasure of taking thé photo a second time with a something added. Colour I do digital though. I have done colour enlarging but it takes too long for me.
I once had a session in the darkroom where I was so thrilled with the results that I started to cry. They were genuine tears of joy. The right tool is the one that strikes a chord with you as an artist. I'm glad we have both to choose from.
I've been printing darkroom prints for many years and have my own darkroom. However, recently I've been able to scan my inventory of 4x5 negatives going back 40 years and with the new printers there are many instances where the inkjet examples come out better and more controlled. I have made the decision to stop making silver prints as they require a considerably long washing time and the water that is wasted is not tenable and plays havoc with my water bill. I still use my darkroom to make platinum/palladium prints which are not only more 'hands on' but require far less washing time. I can now make enlarged 'negatives' with the inkjet printer for contact printing. I will always appreciate the beauty of a well made silver print but for practical and technical reasons inkjet printing with pigment inks and a variety of papers seems the way to go for me.
You pretty well summed up my reasons for sticking with darkroom printing. I've been doing darkroom printing since the mid 70s and I find the ambiance of a darkroom is much more enjoyable and relaxing than the frustration, for myself anyhow, of working with a computer.
I am a 60 year darkroom technician and love film based (medium and large format negatives) on FB darkroom paper better than my inkjet, and in more cases it is the loveliness of the tonality, depth of tone, contrast depth and over all organic look and they feel the seem like you can walk into the picture and be part of the scene where inkjet always looks on the surface. You had mentioned those traits too. Thanks, good video.
@@johndersham1 Really appreciate your knowledge and input. It’s a hard thing to describe but when done right is clearly superior. There is a print at the top of my stairwell and every time I walk up I turn the light on I look at it and the richness and depth amaze me. Makes me want to jump in the darkroom. NEVER had that from a lab or inkjet print. Though I do believe they are beautiful, just not the same.
@@Distphoto I teach film and darkroom classes throughout the southeast. I get asked a lot by entry level new film photographers if there is any reason to print darkroom prints. I tell them it is challenging at first to get a top quality darkroom print but as you do, put and inkjet version and your darkroom print on the wall next to each other and slowly approach the image and notice how the ink jet sits on the surface and the the darkroom print invites you into the scene like it is really there.
Much ado ... I'm almost 70 and have been doing photography since I was 8. I made a lot of prints in the darkroom, and I make a lot of prints now using computer and inkjet printer technology. I look through my old and new prints ... I have favorites made with both processes ... and I came to several realizations. - Neither process is better than the other. Both processes can produce poor results and both can produce superb results. What counts for both is quality of materials, the amount of time and effort you put into the making, the skills you develop to do the job, and how well the photograph 'works' with regards to your intent. The last point is the biggest with respect to your relationship with your work, and is less important if you're talking about submitting your work to external reviewers (exhibitions, photo buyers, etc). - I personally am a better inkjet printer than darkroom printer. While I can do both proficiently when I care to, I find predicting what I'll get from my inkjet printer and matching my expectations a lot less work and a lot more likely than my darkroom work. Part of the problem here is that working in a darkroom is something that I haven't had time to do on a daily basis for more than half my life now, so getting and keeping the manual skills required is difficult compared to flipping on the computer and printer, doing a calibration test, and making a few prints. - If you're out to impress a naïve audience with your prowess as a photographer, it's easier to do with a darkroom print than with an inkjet print. Why? Because a naïve audience has no idea what you do in a darkroom whereas that same audience nowadays thinks they know all about what you do with a computer, given that using computer (desktop, tablet, or phone...) has become an integral part of everyday experience. So ... Go out and be a photographer with whatever camera, lens, and recording media floats your boat. Get skilled at whichever process you find appeals to you, and produce prints that make you happy. Forget about what is better or best as an absolute, learn to see and learn to understand that you can ALWAYS make mistakes and ALWAYS do a little better. The process of finishing art is not a matter of achieving perfection but of determining when is 'good enough' and abandoning a piece for the next project... ;)
As photography is my hobby, and computer work is my day job, working on the computer to produce photos is a non-starter. I just love the dark room process.
Outstanding video. One of the advantages for me in digital is throughput. If you love printing and are always printing and want to print boxes and boxes of images that tell your life story digital is better. If you have a spare 15 minutes you can go into Darktable and edit away. You can print later. No time for chemicals and cleaning needed.
That's a really great point. I have boxes of 5x7 prints that are just that, mostly family, my daughter etc... Also have a frame that I swap out new images. ocasionally it is a darlroom print that I make but 90% of the time it is an iknkjet for all the reasons you mention.
Thanks Mathew for being brave enough to dive into a subject that can be controversial. Great nuanced views on both inkjet printing and darkroom printing. I've had a darkroom for over 40 years and have worked in the darkroom just as long. I've been involved in working with computers and inkjet printing. Both mediums have a learning curve. However, the skills and equipment for digital printing has a shorter shelf life. My darkroom skills have gotten better over time. I have to agree that sometimes I can't tell if a BW print is inkjet or if it's silver gelatin print. With digital printing, I think the reason the image on the computer screen looks different event with properly calibrated systems is the image on the computer screen is transmitted light which always looks better while an image on a digital print is reflected light. I do love silver gelatin prints and printing in the darkroom, but I think it's important to get your images printed. It's something physical versus a bunch of glowing pixels on the screen. Cheers!
A few years ago I was at an exhibition on German photography from the 1918-1939 period, and there I saw August Sander's original gelatin prints next to museum-quality inkjet prints. Unfortunately, there was a gap between the two, and many of my friends also saw the difference. Gelatin-silver photographs are still unbeatable.
90% of my efforts are digital and maybe 10% film. The irony, your film and darkroom information is a direct benefit to my digital hobby. Unlike many of your peers you have the ability to describe/compare/explain without being condescending or biased. You present information and let people decide for themselves. Thanks. You said you started in the 80s and 90s. Do you remember the old drive through Fotomat booths? Regardless of what techniques or film was used, the results were always the same - bland or lackluster (color or B&W).
Appreciate the kind words! Funny that you say that because I have always felt digital photography makes me better at analog and vice versa. though I think it is a function of putting one down and doing the other for a bit as not to get burned out. Sometimes you need a break from one to get back to refreshed with new eyes. I do not recall that Fotomat drive through... though I recall poor quality prints that today are considered "retro" and "cool"
FINALLY a channel dedicated to B&W printing! Thank you. I'm interested in doing carbon based printing, such as Piezography and Paul Roark's system. There's very little information out there. Any thoughts on those? I had a dedicated darkroom for many years and did my own B&W developing and printing. What I found most frustrating was the virtually infinite number of variables - ambient temperature, age of the paper, age of the developer (just sitting in the tray, by the end of the session it was noticeably weaker), alignment of the enlarger, DUST, DUST, DUST - all of which made getting consistent, repeatable results difficult. But I do miss the rituals - mixing and pouring out the chemicals, turning on the safelight, focusing the negative, endless test prints, watching the print emerge magically in the developer, the smell of the fixer and stop bath, the satisfaction of a nice batch of prints after a long night's work. Good old days.
I have been super interested by the carbon inks for quite some time! I do use my Epson for a bit of color printing at the moment. At some point I will get a setup for this... Just finding the time. For now I am quite impressed using the Quadtone RIP with the printer. Will be mixing more inkjet stuff into the mix
Started darkroom printing in my bathroom. Made a bench that sits on top of my washing machine en extends out into the shower. Barely any space to stand up but it got me hooked. Now I joined a photo club with an unused dark room with even an 4x5 enlarger.
Yes i ruined my mother's bathrooms as a middle schooler. Aluminum foil tapped to the windows to block the light. A sheet of plywood over the tub and the enlarger sitting on the toilet. I would come bursting out with a print dripping permanently staining fixer to show her my latest success. I went on to get my B.S. in Photography and 55 years later, I still am fascinated and enthusiastic. Be very careful Photography is addictive.
I like this video. For me it's completely different experience. I miss dark room printing but I'll do it again only if I have proper equipment and dedicated room.
There are 3 things I don't see in most darkroom videos these days that I had way back when. First is a print drying drum. It was actually 2 sided, oval, with a canvas like cover; 1 for each side. Made for flat prints. You could also use it with a shiny piece of metal to get glossy prints. Second is a light meter especially for the darkroom. The last is a focus aid. It looked a bit like a microscope and you put it in the middle of where your paper would go, then use it to focus.
I used one of those way back but they are too large and too expensive for most home darkrooms. I have a simple drying rack that I made from some plastic grating, like you find in ceiling florescent fixtures. I don't like glossy prints anyway, so drying to a matte finish is fine by me. I have a darkroom light meter. It times the exposure and tells you the contrast grade. I use variable contrast paper with filters in the enlarger. It was expensive ($500) and shipped from Europe. It is very time consuming to calibrate. I found one of those focusing aids on*Bay. It works OK if you remember to put a piece of the photo paper under it to account for the height difference with your easel.
Focus finders are a must have. Print exposure meter not so much, a test strip is still needed, even with a meter. I never used a dryer for FB prints, I just dried them and flattened them. One more thing he’s missing out on is platinum toning for true archival FB prints
great video - great insights about the small details, effects and feelings. e.g. the overediting on digital, or the benefit of not knowing in the moment. these things realy spark a lot of thoughts, about what to do and what not, also what do i want to do? why am i doing this, and who to strengthen that. silent, subtle video, with a lot of depth.
Credits to you for not taking a film image, scanning it digitally, editing it digitally, printing it digitally and calling it "analog" or "film photography".
I do like to do both darkroom and inkjet prints. Although mainly use inkjet prints for color (I just started getting into RA-4 printing). I like the Moab Lasal Photo Matte 235 and Lasal Dual Semigloss 330 when making most photo prints -- for B&W (or desaturated color) inkjet prints, the Moab Juniper Baryata Rag 305 is nice. I agree with others in that I work on my computer all day long, so getting away into the darkroom is way more fun than selecting ICC profiles and fighting with printer drivers & color profiles in Photoshop. But when I just want to get something done and I've run out of time, it gets printed on the inkjet. Also if you don't use your inkjet printer all the time, you need to leave it powered on so that the ink doesn't dry in the heads and ruin it. But this also wastes a ton of ink in purge cycles.
Love the Moab papers as well, they are beautifull. I am partial to matte papers for black and white inkjet though the Entrada can flake sometimes. I may be wrong but thought turning the printer off rests the head down preventing it from drying out. I could be wrong as I am constantly having clogs, but seemed to be better since powering it off when not in use (though this could be all in my head)
When I was learning photography, film development and darkroom printing were the only option. So I learned how to do these things with an acceptable (to me) level of proficiency. But once digital reached a level to rival film, I made the switch. While I would love to go back to film I don't have the space for a darkroom, I'm not fold of the chemicals, and the process isn't as enjoyable at it once was. Nevertheless, I dabble with film now having it developed and scanned the results are good enough. Thanks you for your videos. They are very much appreciated.
Thank you! I think it doesn't make sense for a lot of people and that is why the inkjet route could be rewarding for many. So many are shooting film now and not sure if most are aware of how beautiful there prints can be. I do feel that finishing the process in the darkroom is the best experience and way to make an image on film, but certainly not the only way!
Great video. I was laughing with your comment on dust. I only darkroom print now, and that’s because years ago when I started photography I wanted a dedicated art quality epsom printer, and my wife thought that there would be to much dust in our apartment for it to work. It would clog up and malfunction. Do I prefer darkroom but I also would love to make larger digital negatives for contacts occasionally. I really enjoy your videos keep up the good work.
I'm fortunate to have a skilled professional printer in my area who truly knows his craft. Every time I pick up a large print, I'm amazed by the quality. By entrusting my print work to an expert, I can focus on what matters most to me, photography.
I used to make gelatin silver prints on smooth, matte, Ilford paper. I now make matte inkjet prints on smooth epson paper. I love B&W matte inkjet prints. The black is as deep and soft as black velvet. A gelatin silver print can't compare. With digital photography, there's no camera noise either. I won't romanticize the past.
@@davidhunternyc1 Matte inkjet prints are my favorite and have an entirely different kind of beauty to them. Ilford Matte on the other hand can tone in ways I can’t get out of a printer. Both are special.
I find darkroom printing quicker and more convenient because like you I can't tolerate sitting in front of a computer screen, I need to be on my feet and moving around. As I would in a workshop. Being more comfortable in the darkroom environment makes me feel good within myself and I get better results. Loads more satisfaction when you nail that beautiful silver gelatine print. I sell prints as fine art and find it far more difficult to sell inkjet prints. Customers nearly always ask if they are darkroom prints. I think customers don't value inkjet prints because they have their own printer at home, so to them it's somewhat ubiquitous.
@@jonjanson8021 well said. That is really cool to hear that you find it easier to sell darkroom prints and that is important to a lot of people. A lot of times feel we are just to overextended into digital means… and it appears there is no signs of slowing down
@@Distphoto In the art world you could draw a parallel with an oil painting and a watercolour. Same picture but different media. Therefore they communicate in different ways.
Hi, I would adore to have the same experience but exactly the opposite. I'm living in France in a very beautiful city called Annecy and we have an art market in the town the last saturday of every month. So, since 10 years I'm selling my prints (inkjet) on this market. Big formats (24x24 the smallest, 36x50 the biggest) and self printed and framed. A friend of mine is working mainly in the darkroom and he tried to sell some prints on the same market and never could make the difference with his process, people don't mind, just looking at the final result ! A second thing : he never could justify the price ! This is a very sad observation and I would really hope it was not the case ! Maybe in a gallery it's another story, but not sure at all !
@@jean-marcfroehlinger8749 Yes a gallery makes a big difference as opposed to a street market, all the gallery prints are labelled with the process used to make them. For example "Silver Gelatine Print". Cibachrome was the highest level industry standard for color but is no longer with us . Visit a high end gallery and see for yourself.
Good discussion. I finally got around to having a fiber paper darkroom print dry-mounted. Now it's nice and flat, really improves the overall appearance!
I’m a film photographer since over 20 years. With digital I prefer to shoot jpeg with only minimal dodging and burning applied to the jpeg. No sharpening or blurring. Yes, the ultimate quality of raw is higher but over processing means JPEG in practice usually looks better over time for me. It’s a bit like shooting film. Raw is massively overrated unless you’re extremely good in the digital darkroom. Not only good, but consistent. Very very very few people are. Online all are experts but I’d say for 9 of 10 people printing jpegs would net stronger results
I think these days, with a growing popularity of film cameras, people want to see workflow comparisons with the same subject to just their purchases. So please consider making a video where you make a photos of the same scene taken with an high quality digital camera and film camera, then compare the digital print from the digital camera to a darkroom print from a film camera (a third comparison could be where a negative is scanned into a digital file and then printed on an Epson 600). It would be cool to examine all three of those prints.
I had a dedicated darkroom, a Saunders 4500, and a wet area for JOBO processing. Around 2005 I received a K3 Inkjet sample from Epson and was impressed. So impressed, I sold the entire darkroom for $1500 and that covered 50% of an Epson 7800, which I still have. I scanned a 4x5 negative and printed it, comparing it to a silver print . . . the dynamic range and smoothness was equal to the darkroom print. So, equal quality and ease of making larger prints, panoramas. Finally, I labored at reproduction of fine art for artists and chemical color prints were always a compromise. But with K3 inks, and now Vivid inks, reproducing oil paintings, watercolors, and especially pastels . . . the watercolors and pastels, serigraphs, equal to the originals.
A very well thought out video, thank you. When you think of art produced in other media, such as painting, sculpture, or even acoustic music, the inherent characteristics of the material, process or instrument, and the way the artist chooses to work with those, are all important characteristics of the final result. For that reason I think darkroom prints bring something that is lacking in the digital workflow, even though the digital prints may be “technically superior”. With the absolute freedom that a digital workflow provides, I imagine it must be easy to subconsciously fall into the trap of producing a look that’s on-trend, whereas if you are constrained by the characteristics of the darkroom process, perhaps you’re more likely to develop your own unique way of working within those constraints? (Sorry. In danger of out-BS-ing myself here!) I’m very lucky to be a member of a thriving community darkroom in my nearest city, which gives access to a professional set-up with loads of space. Trouble is, it’s a 70 mile round trip, so I don’t use it anything like as much as I should.
Well said the characteristics play a huge roll in the final outcome and without the “constraints” it is like you say easy to simulate everything and never define what you want. I do feel like shooting and scanning film gives some or most of that back and is one of the main draws why people end up loving film so much
I work all day in front of computer after that it is very hard work on computer for photos. That is one thing, the other is Dark room is pure chemical magic in front of our eyes and that magic feeling never goes away .
As far as sharpness is concerned, is it a thing with film and grain vs an inkjet printer that is very exact when it comes to laying down ink? In the early 1970s, I was stationed at Clark AB, Philippines. We had a great lab to develop B&W and color Ektachrome slides. We also had enlargers. It is fun and rewarding as you say. Luckily, the lab really made it easy to process film and make enlargements vs trying to set aside a room in a home or apartment. It was an experience I never forget.
I think it is a combination of the sharpening you can do in the software and how much resolution the printer can output. Coparatively it is just superior resolution to what even the best optical lens and phot paper can resolve... At least that is my impression. But there is a point where to much sharpnes (and even resolution) can detract from the feeling of the image. thanks for sharing!
Very interesting! Thankyou. I am painter, and find b/w photography VERY inspiring.... I just started with photography, but don´t have yet neither a darkroom...nor a printer!...i´ll be in contact!
Would love to see your workflow with Quadtone RIP and the P600. I put that combo together with the idea of making digital negatives for contact prints. But I never got that far. I made a few prints on paper and wow!
@@CarlB558 Working through the same process. Recommend Bill Schwab his RUclips is North Light Photographic and he has a series with the quad tone rip and digital negs. This seems like a really good approach 👍. Yeah the combo doesn’t really well right out of the gate!
Great video and a good comparision. Personally I find the whole film image capture to darkroom print part of the creative process that can't be reproduced by digital and inket printing and I love the analogue process. On the other hand I find the convenience of inkjet printing and ease of manipulation in the likes of lightoom very compelling. I lost my darkroom when I recently moved house but have to set it up again but have to say the convenience of inkjet printing is good.
Another way to tell the differences also is by a reflective densitometer! The Reflectivity of the paper base with different brighteners and its maximum Density! Would you happen to know what the Dmax of InkJet vs a Selenium toned Silver rich paper is ? Thank you for you nice video!
I went to a Santa Fe Workshops platinum palladium printing class. Twice actually. The second time was just for fun. We made digital negatives, on a printer that had an all black inkset (mine died and I haven't found an inkjet printer that I like). Cone Editions makes the inks. Some of the negatives that I made were from scans of 4x5 film negatives. The negative is not the same as a film negative but it's hard to tell the difference.
@@MichaelLloyd That’s awesome Michael, I have wanted to set up a printer for this for a while. Hard to tell without a direct comparison how much better a digital neg would be or print than say using the Quad Tone Rip. Many ways to make digital negatives and for some processes using color can be beneficial for blocking light / adding density. I feel another rabbit hole forming 😂
@@Distphoto Yeah it's a rabbit hole alright. I went to 2 John Paul Caponigro printing workshops when that was what I did for fun. One in Santa Barbara and one at their studio in Maine. The Maine trip was by far my favorite location and I got to meet Paul Caponigro. He's a story teller and I got to hear some personal Ansel Adams stories from him. I got to go to their Father / Son opening in Portland. It was interesting to see the way they interacted with each other. Proud father / proud son. I got to see the original Galaxy Apple print. When you talked about digital being on paper and analog being in paper (paraphrasing here) I thought about that print. I told John Paul that I was fascinated with recreating a platinum palladium print with digital medium but I didn't know what Pt/Pd actually looked look. He called a break, we went out to the gallery, and they pulled some Pt/Pd prints from their collection. They were from 3 photographers, his dad, Ansel Adams, and Edward Weston. We also went to an award ceremony (none of this was planned by the way. I just went to learn inkjet printing) but I don't recall the names of the photographers. They were a big deal before I was born :) Photography has taken me to some interesting places. I started with and still have a Brownie Hawkeye lol Then a 35mm film camera that had a bellows. It was like a little 4x5 only made of metal. My dad picked it up in Japan when he was in the Airforce. Then a Yashica FR2. That was a good camera. The Canon AE1 program came next and I should have kept the Yashica lol. I still have my 1V. When everyone was tossing them to the side I picked up a Hasselblad 503CW. Compared to today it was cheap. I probably couldn't get two backs for what I paid for the camera, lens, viewfinder, and winder back then. I added Linhof Master Technica and some nice lenses when I guy bailed on film and went to digital. 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 round out the film "stuff". Now if I could just find some more time.
@@Distphoto Bostick and Sullivan has an upcoming : "August 22-24, 2024 Printing Gum Bichromate over Platinum and Palladium, Plus Making Digital Negatives. With Guest Instructor Kerik Kouklis Students create stunning 8x10 Platinum and Palladium prints and then, using the same negative, expose a layer of watercolor pigment overtop. The pigment layer adds depth, richness and an endless choice of color to the warmth and tonal range of Platinum and Palladium."
10 years ago, I was using canon Eos DSLR's. I was printing with an Epson 13 inch pigment printer on Epson or Hannemule paper. I didn't have to spend hours standing in a darkroom with some pretty nasty chemicals to make B&W prints. My collegues thought they were great. I had people refuse to believe that the prints were not Silver Gelatin. The cost was horrible. The print head would clog constantly unless used daily. I switched to Canon Dye based printers (Pro 200) and I'm doing fine. I am never going back to the analogue work
Very interesting. Im slowly going to alternative printing like kallitypes with 5x7 negatives or cyanotypes toned with tea. Fiber papers are awesome but Im not so good at darkroom printing
@@Distphoto Yes but I watched a video about the right curves and tones, but I didnt really understand how to get the right negative, the right tones from the eyedropper etc
I am a dedicated darkroom printer. It's easy to be mediocre printer, but hard work to be a master. After many years, I've found there is always something to learn, and to enhance my style. I work on a computer all day long and at the end of the day, the wet process is a welcome relief. I like the idea of being able to retreat to my personal darkroom space a the end of the day. Not so, if you're working on a computer.
Thank you for preparing this video. These types of comparisons between inkjet and darkroom are neglected while it is important to train our visual literacy through these different mechanisms. By the way, I think as you mentioned, for archiving, darkroom prints are more trustable. They can also be washed, but the inkjet prints are sensitive and the ink can spread but during cleaning or touch. Is there any solution for that?
That’s a great comparison video Matthew. I’ve gone thru the same thought processes, and for similar reasons to you I’m pretty sure I’ll always favour a darkroom print when it comes to b&w. I have made some colour analog prints (RA4), but for me the disadvantages outweigh the convenience of inkjet and anyway I find the quality to be at least as good if not better when it comes to colour. I do miss Cibachrome however. 😊
@@mike747436 Thanks Mike, been my experience that color inkjet prints can be incredibly beautiful and usually prefer them to say a Kodak or Fuji lab print. So many beautiful paper options!
I'm a computer processer, did film as part of my journalism studies in the late seventies and enjoyed the darkroom process. I have a few film cameras, most notably a couple of Bronicas, that I've tried to use lately. No darkroom and I'm not able to get that together so I depend(ed) on outside labs to process my film. Terrible results from the two I tried, way, way, too much time trying to clean up dirty negs on my 'puter. So I'm way into the digital process. My photography centralizes on motion, although I do get artsy at times, and I actually *love* working on images via my computer. I'm a cabinetmaker-contractor-carpenter-photographer and make wall art. Very satisfying as I do the end to end process all the way to seeing it on the wall...I trick my mats, craft my frames, use several papers and cover my work with non-glare plexi (can't handle glass...reflections ruin good work, imo, I'm more of a matte guy anyhow). All that said, I'm becomming a good printer, but test prints are essential to gaining a good final product...very rarely do I get what I want on the first try, and that's the beauty of ink-jet/computer work; it's fast. We can geek all we want, but in the end it's what goes up on the wall that counts.
Absolutely agree on how the ink-jet printing went from consumer powerpoint printing to “oh my God that looks stunning” I do believe the question is similar to film vs digital. Everyone will find something they appreciate in every type of process The main point though is to try both options and that’s the first step. The first professionally done print with nice paper showing you what can be achieved may transform a simple hobby to something way more engaging
the vast majority of people do not have the space or time to learn proper darkroom printing- when it is done correctly it is amazing- however over the years there are few workers ive run into who can do this... I've embraced inkjet and I'm using a matte paper ... the prints have a charcoal like look and for what I do it is perfect....
Being a non pro but serious photographer I have done my share of darkroom prints and it is very enjoyable. However, the ease of inkjet…just wins hands down every time. If I were making my living from my work I’d likely do more darkroom production but even still, as you rightly noted, once framed behind clean glass it’s really hard to say one is better than another. Thanks for your analysis.
I started with the darkroom in the seventies. Never became an expert but knew the basic quite well, then shot mostly slides for a while before switching to mainly digital. To me it's astonishing that you list "learning curve" as a minus for digital. Even at my age it's so much easier to learn editing in digital compared to all the darkroom techniques and I can undo or make exactly the same copy several times with no extra effort. All digital workflow is another minus I don't get. I never had a problem with the chemicals in the darkroom and don't mind the smells but to me it still so much more pleasant to sit in a well lit and ventilated room compared to a darkroom. No way I'll go back and it's hard to believe that using a good computer monitor is more straining on the eyes than using the loupe for focusing, evaluating exposure etc etc in the darkroom. To me the first experiences with seeing the image appear in the developer was magical and probably one of the reasons I've stayed with photography as a hobby. Today digital is just technically better and the only reason I can see for the darkroom is that you love the process. That's certainly a valid reason and I shoot a couple of films every year because I still like handling film. I have the films developed by a local store though before scanning and editing the images myself.
The learning curve can be very steep if you get really involved in the calibration for black and white printing. Calibrations, step tablets, to mixing your own pigments and inks, making your own paper profiles, etc.... It can get pretty involved. Though like I stated it can be as simple as hitting print and you will probabaly get great results. The all digital workflow is a negative for me (and others that have stated the same here) I edit images and am in front of a computer most of the day already. I do not want to spend any more time sitting on a screen than I already do. I agree that digital is technically better howver my favorite prints by myself and other photographers were not done digitally and do not think they would be as good if they had been made digitally.
Appreciate the answer. I've never taken the printing to your level with custom inks etc and certainly can't claim to know everything about BW profiling. But I've used calibration devices for screens for 20 years and profiles for printers so I have experience with the profiles and how they almost make everything match (when "lucky"). Still, compared to the complexity of papers, chemicals, temperatures, develop times etc etc of the traditional darkroom where it's close to impossible to get it exactly the same each time I think the learning curve of analog is steeper. Don't doubt you prefer some of the traditional prints, but didn't see anything in the video that convinced me you couldn't have gotten the same - or very close - results digitally. And that's mostly why I wrote the original answer. I work with computers, at least eight hours a day at my day job. I can understand why many prefer to do minimize computer time but to me that's a different issue than learning curves and what digital can and cannot achieve.
"Dust" Enough said right there. Loved it! And, Dude! THREE boxes of Protriga Rapid! That was my most favourite paper ever! I really wish that it was still available.
@@canoedoctor Yeas, it was an eBay buy I believe I bought 8 boxes of unopened cold storage paper or so I was told. All sealed up and they have Lith printed wonderfully 👍
I sharpened my teeth on decades of darkroom work and switched to digital printing when I was able to produce prints that looked better than my best fine-prints on precious fibre-based paper. And it was easier to boot and much easier to reproduce at any time within seconds. But, man, do I miss working in a well setup darkroom with some nice music playing and standing in front of my drying prints in the evening, looking at them with a beer in my hand.
I'm a very old pro went through the Adams' zone system back around 1972, I met Adams and saw his work first hand. I have all the gear, large darkroom with all the toys and all the digital toys as well. I do mostly large format and medium format stuff, I have several customers that require archival prints (museums etc.) and I am certain my traditional prints will survive many years. I can not guarantee my inkjet prints, because no one really knows how long they will last. I do prefer traditional B&W prints for the richness they contain over injet B&W prints. Now color is another story, more of a toss up.
Thank you! Your experience is much appreciated. I agree 100% right down to the color. I have a lot of silver color prints but think it depends on the image if inkjet is better.
I go back a long way. I was processing color slide film in the mid-60s while in HS. I've worked with B&W for years, mostly in 6x7 (Pentax) and 4x5. I've also spent a good deal of time in a color darkroom. I loved B&W darkroom work but never enjoyed color darkroom work. Color in the darkroom left little room for manipulation or creativity. It seemed like it was just follow the rules exactly or it didn't look good!!. B&W was so much more fun. Digital, to me, is just the opposite. Color is so flexible and allows for so much creativity but I have seen very little digital B&W that has the same richness and depth of a good wet print. That's not to say that good digital B&W doesn't exist, but that it seems very hard to do - especially for someone who has the look of an exquisite wet print in mind. Just my experience.
I haven’t printed a photo since I was 17. Enjoyed this video. I think there’s an argument that ‘analog’ printing is more ‘artistic,’ mainly because of the accidental quality and results of that process. However, these artistic ‘accidents’ aren’t inadvertent or the result of good luck or bad luck. It’s the result of dedication, effort and an instinctive ‘eye’. Sitting at a computer is an analytical process. A dialog goes on in your head, quite often from an instruction manual. But in the dark room as you work with a piece of cardboard to dodge part of the print, it’s easier to forget the this that and the other thing from the instruction manual or the temperature and timing chart on the back of the developer bag. But now… how do I set up a dark room?
I'm primarily a visual artist who uses photography as my current primary medium, so it doesn't matter to me how I get the result I want, as long as i get it. I shot film for decades (Ansel was my guru), and although I do on occasion have a bit of nostalgia for that process, digital gives me so much more control and the ability to get the image I want with minimal hassle. I have no plans to go back (other than maybe for fun or to experiment with "non-standard" processing). I get outstanding results using a DxO workflow (mainly PhotoLab and Nik Silver Efex for B&W), and I've yet to have anyone ask me how I made an image (I do sometimes use modified film emulation). There are so many steps in the photographic process, each of which provides immense satisfaction (when things go well), so I still get a great deal of enjoyment going from pre-visualization to the print, regardless of the particulars of the path. It's hard to tell on YT (particularly as a projected image on a screen simply does not look the same as a print--WYSINWYG), but the P600 should be able to produce excellent prints (I have the P900 and the inks are similar, at least the blacks), especially if you use a high-Dmax paper such as Epson Legacy Baryta II, my "go to" for emulating silver-gelatin prints. With regard to price, depending on how you calculate that, the cost for me to produce an inkjet print is but a small fraction of the sale price of the print (IIRC, the most expensive A2/17"x22" paper is under US$10, and I'll use maybe US$2 in ink), so that's a non-issue. But hey, do whatever works for you! I totally get it regarding to the "organic" aspects of film.
I think like you say, do whatever works for you is the best approach. I f you enjoy it and like the results and want to keep improving in that medium than that is what is important. And to your point It really is about the image not how it was made. So whatever way you make the photograph you should strive to make it the best you can for your intentions.
@@Distphoto That's the thing--we all have our preferences. Anyone shooting B&W film should read Bruce Barnbaum's books on the subject. He's moved to digital for color (which has always been problematic with film) but still prefers medium format film for B&W, as he has more control (and can get much higher DR) in the darkroom. I've rarely had a problem getting sufficient DR to realize my vision (and I favor the smaller MFT system due to its versatility/portability), so it's just not worth it to me to build another darkroom. I have way more control over other aspects (such as dodging/burning, contrast/structure, etc.) with Silver Efex than I ever did with chemical processes (and one should ensure very effective ventilation and/or wear a mask as some photochemicals are carcinogenic and otherwise nasty).
@@Distphoto For sure. I also enjoyed The Essence of Photography (a fair amount of overlap but both are useful), and of course Ansel's "trilogy" (and other books) are must-reads IMO, even if you never set foot in a darkroom. I regard the philosophical as much more important than the technical, but you need the latter in order to express the former.
"constraints drive creativity" love that idea. I feel a bit lost without the constraints. The test strip printer will be available soon. A few bugs to work out (mostly in the shipping & tech side of things) but will be launching it soon!
Thank you for this comparison. For me (see @sbills below) The constant screen time is making it very virtual and allows for over editing. This starts at the photo taking process where you can preview the image after taking the shot. Which leads me to the actual reason I only do analogue printing (Disclaimer: I do sometimes scan the negatives for a quick preview) but! If you take a digital foto and print it: You haven't made a photo but created a digital file. Photographs are photons entangled and captured in the silver halide layer. The digital image exists as electrons and can be replaced with any electron depending on the medium it is stored on or is send to; especially considering cloud storage, So, imh(umble)o. An analogue photo is more "real" than a digital representation. But yeah... the dust!
It's been years since I've done any darkroom printing, and for reasons, it's pretty well out of the question for me at the moment. But I'm finding that between developing my own negatives and cyanotype contact printing, it's an acceptable substitute. There's just something about getting your hands wet and the delayed gratification.
The question is silly.Will a properly manipulated digital file printed in a calibrated chain get you closer to your intended end result that a process where you introduce unknowns and approximations? Can you tell the two prints apart from each other 2 meters away under a glass? Has the progress in digital image making stalled or can we still see improvements in small detail fidelity? I think the answer can be seen in the number (and the medium age) of skillfull dark room artisans still remainin today.
Early 70's, ton's of hours in the dark and for the most part very enjoyable (B&W, colour - different story, way too stressful) and certain parts I miss. But today I can take a shot, edit it, even print it - before I'm ready to remove the film from the canister. The prints look so much better than anything I ever did (which was never as good as the Kodak paper catalog - damn they were good!). Dust and the room (and the water and mess) needed for a darkroom - I'll never go back. If only we could get an air freshner that smelled like darkroom......... Oh, there are some old rock in roll songs that take me back to epic darkroom sessions. sigh
It does come with more work as far as dust and cleanup etc... but my favorite images have been ones made in the darkroom listening to some great music!
Definitely would like to see more dark room printing. As for digital or film. It’s film for me. I feel like I’ve made the print. It’s just got more value. I love to see craftsmen ship. You know someone’s put time and a lot of effort in to it. And thanks for all the great videos.
Your welcome... thanks for the feedback! I fully understand and agree. However I do believe there is a large number of people who could not tell the difference or care. If they like the image they may appreciate it and possibly buy it. Though these are not the same people who would spend more because of the rare nature and craftmanship of a hand crafted print.
I want to do darkroom printing and I have when I was in college, but I don’t have that extra time after developing my film and scanning it. I feel the inkjet is a little less of a hassle and easier to learn than the darkroom. They use to have people called printers back in the day which was their main job instead of taking photos. That’s what I would do if I know there’s an image I just have to have as a darkroom print.
I have made no doubt many thousands of black and white darkroom prints over my lifetime. Evidencing my proficiency in darkroom printing is that I have used my own negatives and resulting prints in a book, "An American in Korea, Two Decades of Photography by MY NAME," published by a commercial, not a vanity, press in Korea. I also have thousands of unprinted black and white negatives that I made in China more recently than I made my Korea negatives. I have never done a single digital print, but need for my China negatives to learn how to do so digitally on the belief, possibly false, that digital printing is both cheaper and faster than analogue. So, just speaking for myself, I could use a very basic, bottom-up video or two on digital printing. More specifically, I need to learn techniques of digital printing that are as similar as possible to analogue (dodging and burning, etc.). This video by you, while excellent, does not quite satisfy my needs since it compares the two types of finished prints, instead of what I do need, a video comparing the processes leading to the prints. That, self-indulgently, is my request to you.
For me is easy. Can I split tone a digital print? No I cant. Can I get the contrast absolutely spot on thru a screen? No I cant. Can I enjoy the process of printing in front of a computer? No I cant. The pleasure of delving into an image for hours, in silence, total concentration... No computer can give me that. This is my opinion. I can't put my soul in a digital print. I don't think somebody can. You said it: they are perfect. Dry, cold. But, if after working for a couple of days on an image, you leave the darkroom to see a well done print under the sunlight... Oh, man, that is so beautiful. They are made of you. :)
RA-4 and B&W silver halide prints give true continuous tone prints, whereas inkjet prints use error diffused half-toning (granted, it's quite good at high DPI). I think this is what makes a good print appear to have more "depth", along with the potentially higher Dmax of silver halide & RA-4 emulsions over inkjet. It's sad that Cibachrome is no longer available, I would have loved to have tried it.
I spent about 15 years in darkroom as pro photographer making prints for my clients and publications as well as a number of years as a pro darkroom technician, printing other people’s photos in a very high-end lab. These days I shoot digital for clients and frequently make prints. My observation is that images shot on film look their best when they are printed in a darkroom. Images shot on digital cameras look best when printed on inkjet printers. Whatever capture medium is used, stick to that workflow.
For me, the main benefit of digital printing is they're more easily reproducible. So, if you sell prints, that's a benefit. Not the other hand, a silver based print is unique. Each copy is unique, no matter if you do exactly the same process over and over. And the process is all the difference too. I much prefer working on the darkroom than on the computer. The darkroom's mais problem, for me, is I have to clean it all after each use... But every time I check one of the prints I've made, I remember why I love this. I think film was made to be enlarged, not scanned. You love many information on the process of enlarging. But it's up to you to create the image as you visualized it. You don't stop creating on the shooting. You only end when you enlarge. Since you have less possibilites than on digital, it's up to you to make that image great with what you have, the way you saw it with you mind's eye. On digital, the possibilities are endless from the moment you turn the camera on. This leads people to shoot 5000 images on a session, which I find absurd. Anyone who shoots 600 images on a session probably does not know what he's doing... Then, most of the time is spent editing on a computer. I agree with you that there are much better places to enjoy photography than in front of a screen :) By the way, the digital color prints I make are not on these inkjet printers, but on photographic paper, with labs that have Fuji Frontier or Noritsu. Those are real prints, as I see it, even if digitally manipulated. They have the depth and blacks you get on photo paper and that inkjet lack. But in the end these are two medias, like film and digital. You might prefer one to another but none is bad. It all depends on you photographic history. I'm old school, use film since the 1970's that's why I have these opinions. Thanks for the video! All the best!
The clean up can bae annoying. after a long session it can feel daunting just to pour the stop bath into a bottle from the tray and wash out the tray. I always stay in longer than planned, thats why I have to be diligent on recording things as they happen... otherwise It's just to much at the end. I think we should embrace the reproduceable nature of digital printing and use it for marketing, reproductions, etc.. It is a great way to bring awareness to you as an artist. The Darkroom print should be limited and like you say each one is unique for sure to some extent if using an enlarger. That is really special in photography, especially today. We should embrace this as artists and structure it on a value ladder for promoting ourselves without dilluting our work.
@@Distphoto we share many feelings regarding photography. If the distance were not that much it'd be a pleasure to spend some evenings talking about processes and our common passion. All the best!
i believe if the darkroom print was made on ilford, and not on foma, then the difference would be even more dramatic. nevertheless, a good video as always, and subject to contemplation. would you make a video about toning the prints? especially some cold-toning…
I really like the Foma papers and feel they are on par with Ilfords. I particularly like there reaction to different developers and toners. Though Ilford is Top notch for sure.
Have some toning stuff I have been considering. For the coldest tones with an archival toner Gold is interesting. If you can get your hands on Tim Rudman's Toning book, that is a great reference.
I tend to agree that today's Inkjet printers are pretty amazing. I still think the film process has a slight edge. When framed and viewed from a normal distance, I don't think most would see the difference. However, when it comes to color, the pigmented inkjets are going to produce far more archival prints than film/paper. Hands down, they win there.
@@BruceBurke-o6x Thanks Bruce, I think that is why I have not color printed in the darkroom. I think it would be fine and educational but growing up I just stuck with black and white and now I find inkjet or my labs for color to be superior… but I am assuming as I have no first hand experience.
It's kind of weird seeing this topic from a digital perspective. In my opinion: 1. You do not need a dedicated dark room. If you prints are not bigger than 24x36 (which is what your average inkjet is) the entire setup fits in a normal case. It's a bit bigger than an inkjet, but only a bit. Setting it up anywhere dark is pretty easy. 2. The first time I tried dark room editing I saw that the DIGITAL software is limiting, rather than analog. Analog gave me access to the entire exposure info of my negative, with a very easy and intuitive way to adjust it. Basically infinitely more visual information than any digital software would. The first time you see picture appear, the first time you see how much info actually was in that picture, yeah, you're not going back to editing it digitally. It's pretty much like working with a JPEG vs RAW. 3. Technically, a photo enlarger resolves a negative significantly better than any scanner. Yes, even drum scanner. So when talking about analogue the point is moot. I'd say one of the bigger cons of the darkroom is the jank. Most darkroom equipment is old and well used. For instance, my wife can't focus the enlarger I use, since it requires a lot of force to move the focus bellows. Lenses are dirty and dusty, controls are sticky. Replacement parts are non-existent, and there are very few people left who can actually maintain your equipment. Finding a used enlarger for cheap is easy. Finding someone to unstuck the focus control is pretty much impossible.
I can only speak for myself but it is taking its toll on my eyes… and If I am already editing / business / etc… all day I just do not want to be on the computer anymore. Makes me feel terrible at times. The darkroom usually feels perfect to me comparatively.
I spent many years in the darkroom, bw and ektachrome, and loved it. Not any more, i like digital more and i earn a good wage from it. I do notice a little bit of snobbery coming through, as though film is somehow superior. Dodg, burn and contrast control made plenty of difference in the darkroom, and the most highly regarded photographers in history used those techniques and were never looked down upon. I believe digital is creatively superior to film artistically, and also for technical excellence when required. ✂️😎
I certainly never want to come off like that. I feel both are incredible art forms and one not better than the other. I think for me I also make a good part of my living from digital photography. It is what I consider "work" so when it comes to doing things for myself I enjoy film more but certainly feel technically digital has surpassed it in many ways. In fact it drives me crazy when I see crap images shot on film and they are somehow great because of it. I am perfectly capable of shooting terrible images on both! The creative and artistic side I am not so sure... Some of my favorite images from other photographers were certainly made on film. Not to say they could not have been shot digitally, but they were not.
I disagree in some points: the learning curve for darkroom printing is steep and long too. One will produce good inkjet prints much faster than darkroom prints, which allows much faster iterations. Both are expensive, darkroom printing requires a room, lots of chemistry etc. And for making the wrong adjustments: correct and reprint. Takes 5 minutes instead of half a day. Ultimately it is a moot point, because the quality of the actual image content is relevant.
I believe I agree with all of your points, so if I was unclear in the video I apologize. I very much agree on that the actual image quality first has to be good.
I have to move my enlarger to a small bathroom to print. Not ideal, and I'd probably do more printing if I had a dedicated room, but I get it done when I really want to. And while I think digital photography is generally better and, in all aspects, more practical compared to analog photography, I find the process of analog photography much more satisfying and the finished print feels a lot more special.
I have printed in the darkroom and to inkjet and will say that I personally prefer the inkjet, the reason with my time constraints and I can get the print right in editing, save and print it.
Would silver gelatin paper have made a difference to the dark room print? Forgive my ignorance if it was. I heard it was the gold (or silver!) standard back in the day.
Yes, everyone says to add sharpening but I have found that sharpening is never needed. I have compared digital to darkroom in every way I can and feel confident to say no sharpening is the only way to get natural prints that look like film prints. I have found this rule to be true with Phase One, Leica, Sony and Fujifilm. I have not tried with other cameras.
@@Where_Have_All_My_Files_Gone Seems like sharpening looks better on the screen for me but in print it looks bad. I know people use different amounts for different circumstances. The weird thing is is that with my portraits shot digitally It does not bother me in print when heavily sharpened most of the time (these are usually lab prints on Kodak Endura or Fuji) I think I might just be more critical of a black and white print like this one.
My biggest con to darkroom printing? Disposal of used fixer! A problem with film development, too, but there the amount of liquid is lower. Fixer with its silver content is the most problematic chemical in the whole analog process. I'm not sure if using an inkjet printer is more or less environmentally friendly overall, but it's the less annoying solution for me (I just don't have enough room for a darkroom, and using something like a mobile darkroom would make printing on "real" photographic paper even more cumbersome).
@@oudviola Similar for me, but I have no idea what they *do* with the stuff. In the "old days" there were lots of recycling labs which got the silver out of it (they still exist, but only for large photo labs, and I have no lab around that would take my stuff, and the silver content might be far too low to warrant the effort to get the silver out).
@@oudviola Right, better than nothing. Still unsatisfying. But that's the way it goes - not enough analog photographers left for a better solution. ;-)
Stick with the darkroom videos, I love your videos. There are little enough good darkroom videos out there. There are more than enough ink jet printing videos to keep that side of the craft satisfied.
I LOVE darkroom and will continue to do them but I love printing in general (photography in general actually) so I will mix some other things in from time to time.
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Epson vs Canon. What's the best 17 inch printer for you? P900 vs PRO-1100 vs P5300 [P5370]](/img/1.gif)
After 40 years printing B&W in the darkroom and >20 years printing B&W on the desktop, I've concluded for myself that neither is better than the other, just different. That said, however, I've personally never made or seen a B&W inkjet print where the light seems to emanate from the paper or where water looks wet! B&W silver gelatin prints can reveal these characteristics when printed by a skilled worker. So, to this day I produce prints both ways, but my heart lies with darkroom prints.
@@alanhuntley55 My feelings exactly 👍
Distorted sound????
@@martyzielinski1442 the audio?
@@Distphoto -yes. Over modulated? YT sound is usually very clean.
@@martyzielinski1442 Not sure. Was kind of a echo in the audio I tried to correct maybe I went to far 🤷🏻♂️
I work in IT, so the last thing I want to do on my time off is spend more time in front the computer/tablet/phone/ect. Honestly, I doubt most people/photographers print out their work these days. Mostly it's just scans posted on IG, FB or X for clicks. I do it also...but the photos I do post I will try and print in the analog darkroom. Those prints that I'm making through the traditional darkroom process are special to me. I don't get that feeling printing that photo out on a printer. That's more like, "Wow, look what digital technology can do" but I don't feel attached to that work at all. That process will be even more watered down once AI takes full control. I will continue to stick with the analog printing as long as possible. I also will begin to experiment with Ambrotypes near future.
@@sbills You make a good point… not a lot of printing going on in general these days… kinda sad.
I feel the same as you and get WAY more involved and attached to my darkroom prints. I do find a beautiful inkjet print beautiful just for my work not as special. Awesome to hear you getting into Ambrotypes… I plan on salt and platinum as well. It’s a time and set up thing 👍
@@Distphoto That’s awesome! Platinum prints are on my list also, but ever since I saw James Pearson’s video on the collodion process I’ve had my heart set on that. I’m planning on purchasing an 8x10 Intrepid as my entry into that world. BTW, if you haven’t seen the Pearson video go watch it, very cool stuff.
ditto ditto ditto all day long :D
This is definitely good point, but... For darkroom printing, you need space, chemicals, enlarger, etc. And it is also time consuming, so thats not good for everybody. For me is much better to use as much time as possible to taking photos then preparing dark room and trying to print, so if I want to print something, I am using printer or professional services.
Yep I really need my workshop and “projects” to get tangible results.
I was an army photographer back in the Neolithic film era. I also ran our Division’s darkroom. I developed thousands of rolls of B&W film, and made countless prints to the point that I could just look at the negatives and know what settings and time to use to make a print. It was a lot of work but I loved the job. My boss had exacting standards for the prints. They had to be perfect. They were for either publication or to be given to VIPs.
Later I worked at a one hour photo lab. That was closer to making prints with a computer. We scanned the negatives and a print came out of the machine. But there was absolutely no photo manipulation. Just the images straight from the negatives. I didn’t quite like that.
In college when I worked on programs like Photoshop I could manipulate the image in ways I could never do in the darkroom. I don’t like that for photography’s sake. It becomes something other than photography. Unless it was just working to enhance the image but not change it. Once it’s changed, to me it’s no longer a photograph. It looks like one, but it’s something else like art, and in some cases an abomination. Like taking some celebrity’s head and putting on another person’s body.
There was some photo manipulation in the darkroom and with airbrushing etc. but nowhere near what you can do now. I made prints using a computer and printer, but it is nowhere near the same as making a print by hand and using every trick you know to create a great photograph worthy of framing.
To me and this is my humble opinion that darkrooms film photography is real photography. Others can and may disagree.
That is really cool, bet there were some stories in those prints... Makes me wonder where the negs are now. Did you get to keep them?
Wait until you hear about the AI.
@@Jerry10939 this is great
@@JZStudiosonline AI is not photography.
My father is a landscape and wildlife photographer working very often in Black & White, and the quality he gets out of his Canon printers is nothing short of incredible. He prints on Moab rag paper, and the Canon printers have a whole bunch of grey cartridges in addition to black. He’s had print services attempt to recreate his end result with little success, and eventually ended up buying the large roll printer Canon equivalent to his smaller model. I’d say that the rag paper in matte finish that he uses has good depth, it feels like the ink is really IN the paper as opposed to gloss of semi-gloss. With museum glass, the contrast is also excellent with very deep blacks, uninterrupted by glare on the print surface or the lite. You mention dust as an issue with darkroom work… he has to dust his Moab paper, otherwise he prints in loose flecks and then they flake off after, leaving white specks, so inkjet is still a very physical process. He still prints smaller proofs before scaling up in order to nail his intended tonality. The most important thing with inkjet is not calling it “finished” when you like the cool picture you see on a screen. Too many photographers let their work down by not honing their inkjet skills. It IS still a skill, and farming it out to some print service is usually a disservice.
That is awesome. I fully agree that inkjet is a skill! One that I want to get better at. I have learned that it is much harder than most think or realize.
The Natural Moab paper is my favorite paper to date. The one thing I dislike about it is the flecking or small white specks from the emulsion flaking off... I never considered it being dust on the surface, just thought it was super delicate. Thank you! I will give dusting the paper off a go and see if that helps!
In my teens and early twenties I did a lot of darkroom prints and developing my own b/w films. You know, that way I learned so many things about working with light and how to photograph to make a good final result in the darkroom that I was realy proud of. Now I am in my sixties and realise that the lessons I learned about photography in the analogue darkroom era are still of great value to me. I think I can still make good photo's with my digital equipment but I never have that proud feeling anymore over the results as I had in these earlier darkroom days.... Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this video.
@@Lightwriter1 I do feel proud of some of the digital images, it’s just more fleeting and definitely not the same. You are right though you can learn a lot from film photography and vice vera for digital. You still are working with light.
I learnt b&w processing in my teens and twenties, was even quite good at it. I started at home loading my films under the bedclothes but thé bedroom was sufficiently dark for an enlarger. It always was for pleasure, not for selling prints etc.
Roll on a lot of décades and I passed to digital which to me is liké instant (polaroid). Having bought a cheap scanner to digitalisé old slides I joined a club - but they are entirely digital! I have never yet succeeded in making a satisfactory b&w inkjet print and scanning leaves me a bit cold. For thé cost of PS, Lightroom, décent printer, calibration of thé monitor etc I can have a lot more pleasure printing and I don't have to bang my head against a rebellious computer. Making a print is thé pleasure of taking thé photo a second time with a something added.
Colour I do digital though. I have done colour enlarging but it takes too long for me.
I once had a session in the darkroom where I was so thrilled with the results that I started to cry. They were genuine tears of joy. The right tool is the one that strikes a chord with you as an artist. I'm glad we have both to choose from.
@@DavidStone-ei2dt That is cool. Grateful we have both 🙏
I've been printing darkroom prints for many years and have my own darkroom. However, recently I've been able to scan my inventory of 4x5 negatives going back 40 years and with the new printers there are many instances where the inkjet examples come out better and more controlled. I have made the decision to stop making silver prints as they require a considerably long washing time and the water that is wasted is not tenable and plays havoc with my water bill. I still use my darkroom to make platinum/palladium prints which are not only more 'hands on' but require far less washing time. I can now make enlarged 'negatives' with the inkjet printer for contact printing. I will always appreciate the beauty of a well made silver print but for practical and technical reasons inkjet printing with pigment inks and a variety of papers seems the way to go for me.
You pretty well summed up my reasons for sticking with darkroom printing. I've been doing darkroom printing since the mid 70s and I find the ambiance of a darkroom is much more enjoyable and relaxing than the frustration, for myself anyhow, of working with a computer.
I am a 60 year darkroom technician and love film based (medium and large format negatives) on FB darkroom paper better than my inkjet, and in more cases it is the loveliness of the tonality, depth of tone, contrast depth and over all organic look and they feel the seem like you can walk into the picture and be part of the scene where inkjet always looks on the surface. You had mentioned those traits too. Thanks, good video.
@@johndersham1 Really appreciate your knowledge and input. It’s a hard thing to describe but when done right is clearly superior. There is a print at the top of my stairwell and every time I walk up I turn the light on I look at it and the richness and depth amaze me. Makes me want to jump in the darkroom. NEVER had that from a lab or inkjet print. Though I do believe they are beautiful, just not the same.
@@Distphoto I teach film and darkroom classes throughout the southeast. I get asked a lot by entry level new film photographers if there is any reason to print darkroom prints. I tell them it is challenging at first to get a top quality darkroom print but as you do, put and inkjet version and your darkroom print on the wall next to each other and slowly approach the image and notice how the ink jet sits on the surface and the the darkroom print invites you into the scene like it is really there.
Much ado ... I'm almost 70 and have been doing photography since I was 8. I made a lot of prints in the darkroom, and I make a lot of prints now using computer and inkjet printer technology. I look through my old and new prints ... I have favorites made with both processes ... and I came to several realizations.
- Neither process is better than the other. Both processes can produce poor results and both can produce superb results. What counts for both is quality of materials, the amount of time and effort you put into the making, the skills you develop to do the job, and how well the photograph 'works' with regards to your intent. The last point is the biggest with respect to your relationship with your work, and is less important if you're talking about submitting your work to external reviewers (exhibitions, photo buyers, etc).
- I personally am a better inkjet printer than darkroom printer. While I can do both proficiently when I care to, I find predicting what I'll get from my inkjet printer and matching my expectations a lot less work and a lot more likely than my darkroom work. Part of the problem here is that working in a darkroom is something that I haven't had time to do on a daily basis for more than half my life now, so getting and keeping the manual skills required is difficult compared to flipping on the computer and printer, doing a calibration test, and making a few prints.
- If you're out to impress a naïve audience with your prowess as a photographer, it's easier to do with a darkroom print than with an inkjet print. Why? Because a naïve audience has no idea what you do in a darkroom whereas that same audience nowadays thinks they know all about what you do with a computer, given that using computer (desktop, tablet, or phone...) has become an integral part of everyday experience.
So ... Go out and be a photographer with whatever camera, lens, and recording media floats your boat. Get skilled at whichever process you find appeals to you, and produce prints that make you happy. Forget about what is better or best as an absolute, learn to see and learn to understand that you can ALWAYS make mistakes and ALWAYS do a little better.
The process of finishing art is not a matter of achieving perfection but of determining when is 'good enough' and abandoning a piece for the next project... ;)
As photography is my hobby, and computer work is my day job, working on the computer to produce photos is a non-starter. I just love the dark room process.
I understand completely.
Outstanding video. One of the advantages for me in digital is throughput. If you love printing and are always printing and want to print boxes and boxes of images that tell your life story digital is better. If you have a spare 15 minutes you can go into Darktable and edit away. You can print later. No time for chemicals and cleaning needed.
That's a really great point. I have boxes of 5x7 prints that are just that, mostly family, my daughter etc... Also have a frame that I swap out new images. ocasionally it is a darlroom print that I make but 90% of the time it is an iknkjet for all the reasons you mention.
Thanks Mathew for being brave enough to dive into a subject that can be controversial. Great nuanced views on both inkjet printing and darkroom printing. I've had a darkroom for over 40 years and have worked in the darkroom just as long. I've been involved in working with computers and inkjet printing. Both mediums have a learning curve. However, the skills and equipment for digital printing has a shorter shelf life. My darkroom skills have gotten better over time. I have to agree that sometimes I can't tell if a BW print is inkjet or if it's silver gelatin print. With digital printing, I think the reason the image on the computer screen looks different event with properly calibrated systems is the image on the computer screen is transmitted light which always looks better while an image on a digital print is reflected light. I do love silver gelatin prints and printing in the darkroom, but I think it's important to get your images printed. It's something physical versus a bunch of glowing pixels on the screen. Cheers!
Thanks, very much appreciate the feedback & input!
I would enjoy more videos from you on B&W printing, digital, and darkroom. Thank you, Matthew; I appreciate your channel.
Thank you, that means a lot to me. I will keep making them as long as they are helpful in some way and people watch!
Beautiful video! What do you use for making test strips? Looks very interesting.
Thank you! You can check out the Perfect Test Strip Printer here: distphoto.be/perfect_test_prints 👍
A few years ago I was at an exhibition on German photography from the 1918-1939 period, and there I saw August Sander's original gelatin prints next to museum-quality inkjet prints. Unfortunately, there was a gap between the two, and many of my friends also saw the difference. Gelatin-silver photographs are still unbeatable.
Cool you got to see that, Thanks!
90% of my efforts are digital and maybe 10% film. The irony, your film and darkroom information is a direct benefit to my digital hobby. Unlike many of your peers you have the ability to describe/compare/explain without being condescending or biased. You present information and let people decide for themselves. Thanks.
You said you started in the 80s and 90s. Do you remember the old drive through Fotomat booths? Regardless of what techniques or film was used, the results were always the same - bland or lackluster (color or B&W).
Appreciate the kind words! Funny that you say that because I have always felt digital photography makes me better at analog and vice versa. though I think it is a function of putting one down and doing the other for a bit as not to get burned out. Sometimes you need a break from one to get back to refreshed with new eyes.
I do not recall that Fotomat drive through... though I recall poor quality prints that today are considered "retro" and "cool"
FINALLY a channel dedicated to B&W printing! Thank you. I'm interested in doing carbon based printing, such as Piezography and Paul Roark's system. There's very little information out there. Any thoughts on those?
I had a dedicated darkroom for many years and did my own B&W developing and printing. What I found most frustrating was the virtually infinite number of variables - ambient temperature, age of the paper, age of the developer (just sitting in the tray, by the end of the session it was noticeably weaker), alignment of the enlarger, DUST, DUST, DUST - all of which made getting consistent, repeatable results difficult. But I do miss the rituals - mixing and pouring out the chemicals, turning on the safelight, focusing the negative, endless test prints, watching the print emerge magically in the developer, the smell of the fixer and stop bath, the satisfaction of a nice batch of prints after a long night's work. Good old days.
I have been super interested by the carbon inks for quite some time! I do use my Epson for a bit of color printing at the moment. At some point I will get a setup for this... Just finding the time.
For now I am quite impressed using the Quadtone RIP with the printer. Will be mixing more inkjet stuff into the mix
I’ve never been able to produce a good darkroom print so it amazes me that you got those two silver and inkjet prints THAT close. Much respect!
@@TheNathanMChannel Thanks… had some practice 👍
Started darkroom printing in my bathroom. Made a bench that sits on top of my washing machine en extends out into the shower. Barely any space to stand up but it got me hooked. Now I joined a photo club with an unused dark room with even an 4x5 enlarger.
That is super cool, great to hear!
Yes i ruined my mother's bathrooms as a middle schooler. Aluminum foil tapped to the windows to block the light. A sheet of plywood over the tub and the enlarger sitting on the toilet. I would come bursting out with a print dripping permanently staining fixer to show her my latest success. I went on to get my B.S. in Photography and 55 years later, I still am fascinated and enthusiastic. Be very careful Photography is addictive.
I like this video. For me it's completely different experience. I miss dark room printing but I'll do it again only if I have proper equipment and dedicated room.
Thank you! It helps getting a dedicated setup and space. Much easier to be consistent
There are 3 things I don't see in most darkroom videos these days that I had way back when. First is a print drying drum. It was actually 2 sided, oval, with a canvas like cover; 1 for each side. Made for flat prints. You could also use it with a shiny piece of metal to get glossy prints. Second is a light meter especially for the darkroom. The last is a focus aid. It looked a bit like a microscope and you put it in the middle of where your paper would go, then use it to focus.
I used one of those way back but they are too large and too expensive for most home darkrooms. I have a simple drying rack that I made from some plastic grating, like you find in ceiling florescent fixtures. I don't like glossy prints anyway, so drying to a matte finish is fine by me. I have a darkroom light meter. It times the exposure and tells you the contrast grade. I use variable contrast paper with filters in the enlarger. It was expensive ($500) and shipped from Europe. It is very time consuming to calibrate. I found one of those focusing aids on*Bay. It works OK if you remember to put a piece of the photo paper under it to account for the height difference with your easel.
Focus finders are a must have. Print exposure meter not so much, a test strip is still needed, even with a meter. I never used a dryer for FB prints, I just dried them and flattened them. One more thing he’s missing out on is platinum toning for true archival FB prints
great video - great insights about the small details, effects and feelings. e.g. the overediting on digital, or the benefit of not knowing in the moment. these things realy spark a lot of thoughts, about what to do and what not, also what do i want to do? why am i doing this, and who to strengthen that. silent, subtle video, with a lot of depth.
@@sternschnupper Thanks for the feedback… I think about this stuff constantly 😅
Credits to you for not taking a film image, scanning it digitally, editing it digitally, printing it digitally and calling it "analog" or "film photography".
Most peoples workflows today are definetly hybrid.
I do like to do both darkroom and inkjet prints. Although mainly use inkjet prints for color (I just started getting into RA-4 printing). I like the Moab Lasal Photo Matte 235 and Lasal Dual Semigloss 330 when making most photo prints -- for B&W (or desaturated color) inkjet prints, the Moab Juniper Baryata Rag 305 is nice.
I agree with others in that I work on my computer all day long, so getting away into the darkroom is way more fun than selecting ICC profiles and fighting with printer drivers & color profiles in Photoshop. But when I just want to get something done and I've run out of time, it gets printed on the inkjet.
Also if you don't use your inkjet printer all the time, you need to leave it powered on so that the ink doesn't dry in the heads and ruin it. But this also wastes a ton of ink in purge cycles.
Love the Moab papers as well, they are beautifull. I am partial to matte papers for black and white inkjet though the Entrada can flake sometimes.
I may be wrong but thought turning the printer off rests the head down preventing it from drying out. I could be wrong as I am constantly having clogs, but seemed to be better since powering it off when not in use (though this could be all in my head)
When I was learning photography, film development and darkroom printing were the only option. So I learned how to do these things with an acceptable (to me) level of proficiency. But once digital reached a level to rival film, I made the switch. While I would love to go back to film I don't have the space for a darkroom, I'm not fold of the chemicals, and the process isn't as enjoyable at it once was. Nevertheless, I dabble with film now having it developed and scanned the results are good enough. Thanks you for your videos. They are very much appreciated.
Thank you! I think it doesn't make sense for a lot of people and that is why the inkjet route could be rewarding for many. So many are shooting film now and not sure if most are aware of how beautiful there prints can be.
I do feel that finishing the process in the darkroom is the best experience and way to make an image on film, but certainly not the only way!
The biggest issue I have with inkjets (latest is Epson) is that I don't print much. Things dry out and prints become unreliable.
Great video. I was laughing with your comment on dust. I only darkroom print now, and that’s because years ago when I started photography I wanted a dedicated art quality epsom printer, and my wife thought that there would be to much dust in our apartment for it to work. It would clog up and malfunction. Do I prefer darkroom but I also would love to make larger digital negatives for contacts occasionally. I really enjoy your videos keep up the good work.
Thanks Michael, appreciate it!
I'm fortunate to have a skilled professional printer in my area who truly knows his craft. Every time I pick up a large print, I'm amazed by the quality. By entrusting my print work to an expert, I can focus on what matters most to me, photography.
That is fortunate. Few and far between these days!
A very fair analysis. The depth and quality of the black-and-white tonal range in crafted darkroom prints cannot be surpassed in my opinion.
I used to make gelatin silver prints on smooth, matte, Ilford paper. I now make matte inkjet prints on smooth epson paper. I love B&W matte inkjet prints. The black is as deep and soft as black velvet. A gelatin silver print can't compare. With digital photography, there's no camera noise either. I won't romanticize the past.
@@davidhunternyc1 Matte inkjet prints are my favorite and have an entirely different kind of beauty to them. Ilford Matte on the other hand can tone in ways I can’t get out of a printer. Both are special.
I find darkroom printing quicker and more convenient because like you I can't tolerate sitting in front of a computer screen, I need to be on my feet and moving around. As I would in a workshop. Being more comfortable in the darkroom environment makes me feel good within myself and I get better results. Loads more satisfaction when you nail that beautiful silver gelatine print.
I sell prints as fine art and find it far more difficult to sell inkjet prints. Customers nearly always ask if they are darkroom prints. I think customers don't value inkjet prints because they have their own printer at home, so to them it's somewhat ubiquitous.
@@jonjanson8021 well said. That is really cool to hear that you find it easier to sell darkroom prints and that is important to a lot of people. A lot of times feel we are just to overextended into digital means… and it appears there is no signs of slowing down
@@Distphoto In the art world you could draw a parallel with an oil painting and a watercolour. Same picture but different media. Therefore they communicate in different ways.
Hi, I would adore to have the same experience but exactly the opposite. I'm living in France in a very beautiful city called Annecy and we have an art market in the town the last saturday of every month. So, since 10 years I'm selling my prints (inkjet) on this market. Big formats (24x24 the smallest, 36x50 the biggest) and self printed and framed. A friend of mine is working mainly in the darkroom and he tried to sell some prints on the same market and never could make the difference with his process, people don't mind, just looking at the final result ! A second thing : he never could justify the price ! This is a very sad observation and I would really hope it was not the case ! Maybe in a gallery it's another story, but not sure at all !
@@jean-marcfroehlinger8749 Yes a gallery makes a big difference as opposed to a street market, all the gallery prints are labelled with the process used to make them. For example "Silver Gelatine Print". Cibachrome was the highest level industry standard for color but is no longer with us . Visit a high end gallery and see for yourself.
Good discussion. I finally got around to having a fiber paper darkroom print dry-mounted. Now it's nice and flat, really improves the overall appearance!
Yes, it makes all the difference!
Great video, very balance approach. As you say the big downer is being stuck in front of a computer, which I am all day also.
Very nice and balanced discussion. Liked this a lot. And timely for me.
You have expressed 100% of my observations. This has been my way of working since 2008. And the “overprocess” is the biggest problem.
It's so sneaky too, I just always fiddle to much. It's kinad like bring a whole bunch of lighting and messing up really good natural light.
I’m a film photographer since over 20 years. With digital I prefer to shoot jpeg with only minimal dodging and burning applied to the jpeg. No sharpening or blurring. Yes, the ultimate quality of raw is higher but over processing means JPEG in practice usually looks better over time for me. It’s a bit like shooting film. Raw is massively overrated unless you’re extremely good in the digital darkroom. Not only good, but consistent. Very very very few people are. Online all are experts but I’d say for 9 of 10 people printing jpegs would net stronger results
I think these days, with a growing popularity of film cameras, people want to see workflow comparisons with the same subject to just their purchases. So please consider making a video where you make a photos of the same scene taken with an high quality digital camera and film camera, then compare the digital print from the digital camera to a darkroom print from a film camera (a third comparison could be where a negative is scanned into a digital file and then printed on an Epson 600). It would be cool to examine all three of those prints.
@@elliotresnick5433 Like that idea, thanks!
I had a dedicated darkroom, a Saunders 4500, and a wet area for JOBO processing. Around 2005 I received a K3 Inkjet sample from Epson and was impressed. So impressed, I sold the entire darkroom for $1500 and that covered 50% of an Epson 7800, which I still have. I scanned a 4x5 negative and printed it, comparing it to a silver print . . . the dynamic range and smoothness was equal to the darkroom print.
So, equal quality and ease of making larger prints, panoramas.
Finally, I labored at reproduction of fine art for artists and chemical color prints were always a compromise. But with K3 inks, and now Vivid inks, reproducing oil paintings, watercolors, and especially pastels . . . the watercolors and pastels, serigraphs, equal to the originals.
Being able to do great reproductions is a skill all on its own 👍🏻
A very well thought out video, thank you. When you think of art produced in other media, such as painting, sculpture, or even acoustic music, the inherent characteristics of the material, process or instrument, and the way the artist chooses to work with those, are all important characteristics of the final result. For that reason I think darkroom prints bring something that is lacking in the digital workflow, even though the digital prints may be “technically superior”.
With the absolute freedom that a digital workflow provides, I imagine it must be easy to subconsciously fall into the trap of producing a look that’s on-trend, whereas if you are constrained by the characteristics of the darkroom process, perhaps you’re more likely to develop your own unique way of working within those constraints? (Sorry. In danger of out-BS-ing myself here!)
I’m very lucky to be a member of a thriving community darkroom in my nearest city, which gives access to a professional set-up with loads of space. Trouble is, it’s a 70 mile round trip, so I don’t use it anything like as much as I should.
Well said the characteristics play a huge roll in the final outcome and without the “constraints” it is like you say easy to simulate everything and never define what you want. I do feel like shooting and scanning film gives some or most of that back and is one of the main draws why people end up loving film so much
I think you made a very fair and thoughtful analysis. It was nice to see.
Appreciate that, thank you!
I work all day in front of computer after that it is very hard work on computer for photos. That is one thing, the other is Dark room is pure chemical magic in front of our eyes and that magic feeling never goes away .
@@gurhanpekuz1813 Well said 🙌
As far as sharpness is concerned, is it a thing with film and grain vs an inkjet printer that is very exact when it comes to laying down ink?
In the early 1970s, I was stationed at Clark AB, Philippines. We had a great lab to develop B&W and color Ektachrome slides. We also had enlargers. It is fun and rewarding as you say. Luckily, the lab really made it easy to process film and make enlargements vs trying to set aside a room in a home or apartment. It was an experience I never forget.
I think it is a combination of the sharpening you can do in the software and how much resolution the printer can output. Coparatively it is just superior resolution to what even the best optical lens and phot paper can resolve... At least that is my impression. But there is a point where to much sharpnes (and even resolution) can detract from the feeling of the image.
thanks for sharing!
Very interesting! Thankyou. I am painter, and find b/w photography VERY inspiring.... I just started with photography, but don´t have yet neither a darkroom...nor a printer!...i´ll be in contact!
@@JoseMaríaCastelaoCámara Your welcome 🙏
Would love to see your workflow with Quadtone RIP and the P600. I put that combo together with the idea of making digital negatives for contact prints. But I never got that far. I made a few prints on paper and wow!
@@CarlB558 Working through the same process. Recommend Bill Schwab his RUclips is North Light Photographic and he has a series with the quad tone rip and digital negs. This seems like a really good approach 👍. Yeah the combo doesn’t really well right out of the gate!
Great video and a good comparision. Personally I find the whole film image capture to darkroom print part of the creative process that can't be reproduced by digital and inket printing and I love the analogue process. On the other hand I find the convenience of inkjet printing and ease of manipulation in the likes of lightoom very compelling. I lost my darkroom when I recently moved house but have to set it up again but have to say the convenience of inkjet printing is good.
Agree with you 100%. Something about the whole process for me is more energizing.
Another way to tell the differences also is by a reflective densitometer! The Reflectivity of the paper base with different brighteners and its maximum Density! Would you happen to know what the Dmax of InkJet vs a Selenium toned Silver rich paper is ? Thank you for you nice video!
I went to a Santa Fe Workshops platinum palladium printing class. Twice actually. The second time was just for fun. We made digital negatives, on a printer that had an all black inkset (mine died and I haven't found an inkjet printer that I like). Cone Editions makes the inks. Some of the negatives that I made were from scans of 4x5 film negatives. The negative is not the same as a film negative but it's hard to tell the difference.
@@MichaelLloyd That’s awesome Michael, I have wanted to set up a printer for this for a while. Hard to tell without a direct comparison how much better a digital neg would be or print than say using the Quad Tone Rip. Many ways to make digital negatives and for some processes using color can be beneficial for blocking light / adding density. I feel another rabbit hole forming 😂
@@Distphoto Yeah it's a rabbit hole alright. I went to 2 John Paul Caponigro printing workshops when that was what I did for fun. One in Santa Barbara and one at their studio in Maine. The Maine trip was by far my favorite location and I got to meet Paul Caponigro. He's a story teller and I got to hear some personal Ansel Adams stories from him. I got to go to their Father / Son opening in Portland. It was interesting to see the way they interacted with each other. Proud father / proud son. I got to see the original Galaxy Apple print. When you talked about digital being on paper and analog being in paper (paraphrasing here) I thought about that print. I told John Paul that I was fascinated with recreating a platinum palladium print with digital medium but I didn't know what Pt/Pd actually looked look. He called a break, we went out to the gallery, and they pulled some Pt/Pd prints from their collection. They were from 3 photographers, his dad, Ansel Adams, and Edward Weston. We also went to an award ceremony (none of this was planned by the way. I just went to learn inkjet printing) but I don't recall the names of the photographers. They were a big deal before I was born :) Photography has taken me to some interesting places. I started with and still have a Brownie Hawkeye lol Then a 35mm film camera that had a bellows. It was like a little 4x5 only made of metal. My dad picked it up in Japan when he was in the Airforce. Then a Yashica FR2. That was a good camera. The Canon AE1 program came next and I should have kept the Yashica lol. I still have my 1V. When everyone was tossing them to the side I picked up a Hasselblad 503CW. Compared to today it was cheap. I probably couldn't get two backs for what I paid for the camera, lens, viewfinder, and winder back then. I added Linhof Master Technica and some nice lenses when I guy bailed on film and went to digital. 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 round out the film "stuff". Now if I could just find some more time.
@@Distphoto Bostick and Sullivan has an upcoming :
"August 22-24, 2024 Printing Gum Bichromate over Platinum and Palladium, Plus Making Digital Negatives. With Guest Instructor Kerik Kouklis
Students create stunning 8x10 Platinum and Palladium prints and then, using the same negative, expose a layer of watercolor pigment overtop. The pigment layer adds depth, richness and an endless choice of color to the warmth and tonal range of Platinum and Palladium."
10 years ago, I was using canon Eos DSLR's. I was printing with an Epson 13 inch pigment printer on Epson or Hannemule paper. I didn't have to spend hours standing in a darkroom with some pretty nasty chemicals to make B&W prints. My collegues thought they were great. I had people refuse to believe that the prints were not Silver Gelatin. The cost was horrible. The print head would clog constantly unless used daily. I switched to Canon Dye based printers (Pro 200) and I'm doing fine. I am never going back to the analogue work
Very interesting. Im slowly going to alternative printing like kallitypes with 5x7 negatives or cyanotypes toned with tea. Fiber papers are awesome but Im not so good at darkroom printing
That sounds amazing... want to do some vids on tea toning (silver gelatin though) have you considered digital negatives?
@@Distphoto Yes but I watched a video about the right curves and tones, but I didnt really understand how to get the right negative, the right tones from the eyedropper etc
I'm making cyanotype prints, both as an alternative to darkroom work, but also because it's rewarding in it's own right. Toning is my next step.
I am a dedicated darkroom printer. It's easy to be mediocre printer, but hard work to be a master. After many years, I've found there is always something to learn, and to enhance my style. I work on a computer all day long and at the end of the day, the wet process is a welcome relief. I like the idea of being able to retreat to my personal darkroom space a the end of the day. Not so, if you're working on a computer.
@@12m3g4b5h 👍👍👍
Thank you for preparing this video. These types of comparisons between inkjet and darkroom are neglected while it is important to train our visual literacy through these different mechanisms. By the way, I think as you mentioned, for archiving, darkroom prints are more trustable. They can also be washed, but the inkjet prints are sensitive and the ink can spread but during cleaning or touch. Is there any solution for that?
That’s a great comparison video Matthew. I’ve gone thru the same thought processes, and for similar reasons to you I’m pretty sure I’ll always favour a darkroom print when it comes to b&w. I have made some colour analog prints (RA4), but for me the disadvantages outweigh the convenience of inkjet and anyway I find the quality to be at least as good if not better when it comes to colour. I do miss Cibachrome however. 😊
@@mike747436 Thanks Mike, been my experience that color inkjet prints can be incredibly beautiful and usually prefer them to say a Kodak or Fuji lab print. So many beautiful paper options!
Yes, the lack of paper choice is another big con with analog colour printing for sure.
I'm a computer processer, did film as part of my journalism studies in the late seventies and enjoyed the darkroom process. I have a few film cameras, most notably a couple of Bronicas, that I've tried to use lately. No darkroom and I'm not able to get that together so I depend(ed) on outside labs to process my film. Terrible results from the two I tried, way, way, too much time trying to clean up dirty negs on my 'puter. So I'm way into the digital process. My photography centralizes on motion, although I do get artsy at times, and I actually *love* working on images via my computer. I'm a cabinetmaker-contractor-carpenter-photographer and make wall art. Very satisfying as I do the end to end process all the way to seeing it on the wall...I trick my mats, craft my frames, use several papers and cover my work with non-glare plexi (can't handle glass...reflections ruin good work, imo, I'm more of a matte guy anyhow). All that said, I'm becomming a good printer, but test prints are essential to gaining a good final product...very rarely do I get what I want on the first try, and that's the beauty of ink-jet/computer work; it's fast. We can geek all we want, but in the end it's what goes up on the wall that counts.
Absolutely agree on how the ink-jet printing went from consumer powerpoint printing to “oh my God that looks stunning”
I do believe the question is similar to film vs digital. Everyone will find something they appreciate in every type of process
The main point though is to try both options and that’s the first step. The first professionally done print with nice paper showing you what can be achieved may transform a simple hobby to something way more engaging
@@Rocking70s Yes, give both a try! Well said.
the vast majority of people do not have the space or time to learn proper darkroom printing- when it is done correctly it is amazing- however over the years there are few workers ive run into who can do this... I've embraced inkjet and I'm using a matte paper ... the prints have a charcoal like look and for what I do it is perfect....
A nice post, having done both, I agree computers are a pain in the eyes. But, it's much easier to print really large with digital :)
Thank you, I would agree with that. 16x20 is about as big as I go in my darkroom
Being a non pro but serious photographer I have done my share of darkroom prints and it is very enjoyable. However, the ease of inkjet…just wins hands down every time. If I were making my living from my work I’d likely do more darkroom production but even still, as you rightly noted, once framed behind clean glass it’s really hard to say one is better than another. Thanks for your analysis.
Your welcome, Thanks for the great input!
I started with the darkroom in the seventies. Never became an expert but knew the basic quite well, then shot mostly slides for a while before switching to mainly digital. To me it's astonishing that you list "learning curve" as a minus for digital. Even at my age it's so much easier to learn editing in digital compared to all the darkroom techniques and I can undo or make exactly the same copy several times with no extra effort.
All digital workflow is another minus I don't get. I never had a problem with the chemicals in the darkroom and don't mind the smells but to me it still so much more pleasant to sit in a well lit and ventilated room compared to a darkroom. No way I'll go back and it's hard to believe that using a good computer monitor is more straining on the eyes than using the loupe for focusing, evaluating exposure etc etc in the darkroom.
To me the first experiences with seeing the image appear in the developer was magical and probably one of the reasons I've stayed with photography as a hobby. Today digital is just technically better and the only reason I can see for the darkroom is that you love the process. That's certainly a valid reason and I shoot a couple of films every year because I still like handling film. I have the films developed by a local store though before scanning and editing the images myself.
The learning curve can be very steep if you get really involved in the calibration for black and white printing. Calibrations, step tablets, to mixing your own pigments and inks, making your own paper profiles, etc.... It can get pretty involved. Though like I stated it can be as simple as hitting print and you will probabaly get great results.
The all digital workflow is a negative for me (and others that have stated the same here) I edit images and am in front of a computer most of the day already. I do not want to spend any more time sitting on a screen than I already do.
I agree that digital is technically better howver my favorite prints by myself and other photographers were not done digitally and do not think they would be as good if they had been made digitally.
Appreciate the answer. I've never taken the printing to your level with custom inks etc and certainly can't claim to know everything about BW profiling. But I've used calibration devices for screens for 20 years and profiles for printers so I have experience with the profiles and how they almost make everything match (when "lucky").
Still, compared to the complexity of papers, chemicals, temperatures, develop times etc etc of the traditional darkroom where it's close to impossible to get it exactly the same each time I think the learning curve of analog is steeper.
Don't doubt you prefer some of the traditional prints, but didn't see anything in the video that convinced me you couldn't have gotten the same - or very close - results digitally. And that's mostly why I wrote the original answer.
I work with computers, at least eight hours a day at my day job. I can understand why many prefer to do minimize computer time but to me that's a different issue than learning curves and what digital can and cannot achieve.
"Dust" Enough said right there. Loved it! And, Dude! THREE boxes of Protriga Rapid! That was my most favourite paper ever! I really wish that it was still available.
Ive got more in the freezer 🤩... Took a gamble and paid off big
@@Distphoto Portriga rapid is darkroom gold. Did you find some old stock somewhere?
@@canoedoctor Yeas, it was an eBay buy I believe I bought 8 boxes of unopened cold storage paper or so I was told. All sealed up and they have Lith printed wonderfully 👍
I sharpened my teeth on decades of darkroom work and switched to digital printing when I was able to produce prints that looked better than my best fine-prints on precious fibre-based paper. And it was easier to boot and much easier to reproduce at any time within seconds. But, man, do I miss working in a well setup darkroom with some nice music playing and standing in front of my drying prints in the evening, looking at them with a beer in my hand.
I'm a very old pro went through the Adams' zone system back around 1972, I met Adams and saw his work first hand. I have all the gear, large darkroom with all the toys and all the digital toys as well. I do mostly large format and medium format stuff, I have several customers that require archival prints (museums etc.) and I am certain my traditional prints will survive many years. I can not guarantee my inkjet prints, because no one really knows how long they will last. I do prefer traditional B&W prints for the richness they contain over injet B&W prints. Now color is another story, more of a toss up.
Thank you! Your experience is much appreciated. I agree 100% right down to the color. I have a lot of silver color prints but think it depends on the image if inkjet is better.
I go back a long way. I was processing color slide film in the mid-60s while in HS. I've worked with B&W for years, mostly in 6x7 (Pentax) and 4x5. I've also spent a good deal of time in a color darkroom. I loved B&W darkroom work but never enjoyed color darkroom work. Color in the darkroom left little room for manipulation or creativity. It seemed like it was just follow the rules exactly or it didn't look good!!. B&W was so much more fun.
Digital, to me, is just the opposite. Color is so flexible and allows for so much creativity but I have seen very little digital B&W that has the same richness and depth of a good wet print. That's not to say that good digital B&W doesn't exist, but that it seems very hard to do - especially for someone who has the look of an exquisite wet print in mind. Just my experience.
Dude, since you're into B&W printing, why are you not running B&W Cone inks in your p600?
@@F1lmtwit Well because I do use it for color as well… But believe me I want to 👍
I haven’t printed a photo since I was 17. Enjoyed this video. I think there’s an argument that ‘analog’ printing is more ‘artistic,’ mainly because of the accidental quality and results of that process. However, these artistic ‘accidents’ aren’t inadvertent or the result of good luck or bad luck. It’s the result of dedication, effort and an instinctive ‘eye’. Sitting at a computer is an analytical process. A dialog goes on in your head, quite often from an instruction manual. But in the dark room as you work with a piece of cardboard to dodge part of the print, it’s easier to forget the this that and the other thing from the instruction manual or the temperature and timing chart on the back of the developer bag. But now… how do I set up a dark room?
I'm primarily a visual artist who uses photography as my current primary medium, so it doesn't matter to me how I get the result I want, as long as i get it. I shot film for decades (Ansel was my guru), and although I do on occasion have a bit of nostalgia for that process, digital gives me so much more control and the ability to get the image I want with minimal hassle. I have no plans to go back (other than maybe for fun or to experiment with "non-standard" processing). I get outstanding results using a DxO workflow (mainly PhotoLab and Nik Silver Efex for B&W), and I've yet to have anyone ask me how I made an image (I do sometimes use modified film emulation). There are so many steps in the photographic process, each of which provides immense satisfaction (when things go well), so I still get a great deal of enjoyment going from pre-visualization to the print, regardless of the particulars of the path.
It's hard to tell on YT (particularly as a projected image on a screen simply does not look the same as a print--WYSINWYG), but the P600 should be able to produce excellent prints (I have the P900 and the inks are similar, at least the blacks), especially if you use a high-Dmax paper such as Epson Legacy Baryta II, my "go to" for emulating silver-gelatin prints. With regard to price, depending on how you calculate that, the cost for me to produce an inkjet print is but a small fraction of the sale price of the print (IIRC, the most expensive A2/17"x22" paper is under US$10, and I'll use maybe US$2 in ink), so that's a non-issue. But hey, do whatever works for you! I totally get it regarding to the "organic" aspects of film.
I think like you say, do whatever works for you is the best approach. I f you enjoy it and like the results and want to keep improving in that medium than that is what is important. And to your point It really is about the image not how it was made. So whatever way you make the photograph you should strive to make it the best you can for your intentions.
@@Distphoto That's the thing--we all have our preferences. Anyone shooting B&W film should read Bruce Barnbaum's books on the subject. He's moved to digital for color (which has always been problematic with film) but still prefers medium format film for B&W, as he has more control (and can get much higher DR) in the darkroom. I've rarely had a problem getting sufficient DR to realize my vision (and I favor the smaller MFT system due to its versatility/portability), so it's just not worth it to me to build another darkroom. I have way more control over other aspects (such as dodging/burning, contrast/structure, etc.) with Silver Efex than I ever did with chemical processes (and one should ensure very effective ventilation and/or wear a mask as some photochemicals are carcinogenic and otherwise nasty).
@@ddsdss256 Bruce Barnbaum’s book The Art of Photography in my opinion should be a required read for every photographer 👍
@@Distphoto For sure. I also enjoyed The Essence of Photography (a fair amount of overlap but both are useful), and of course Ansel's "trilogy" (and other books) are must-reads IMO, even if you never set foot in a darkroom. I regard the philosophical as much more important than the technical, but you need the latter in order to express the former.
Constraints drive creativity, thats what I love about the darkroom and working with film.
Btw. Really like that test strip printer, is it 3D printed?
"constraints drive creativity" love that idea. I feel a bit lost without the constraints.
The test strip printer will be available soon. A few bugs to work out (mostly in the shipping & tech side of things) but will be launching it soon!
Thank you for this comparison.
For me (see @sbills below) The constant screen time is making it very virtual and allows for over editing. This starts at the photo taking process where you can preview the image after taking the shot.
Which leads me to the actual reason I only do analogue printing (Disclaimer: I do sometimes scan the negatives for a quick preview) but! If you take a digital foto and print it: You haven't made a photo but created a digital file. Photographs are photons entangled and captured in the silver halide layer. The digital image exists as electrons and can be replaced with any electron depending on the medium it is stored on or is send to; especially considering cloud storage,
So, imh(umble)o. An analogue photo is more "real" than a digital representation.
But yeah... the dust!
A platinum print is the ultimate print for subtle tonal gradation, depth of blacks and archival permanence (on archival paper, of course)
It's been years since I've done any darkroom printing, and for reasons, it's pretty well out of the question for me at the moment. But I'm finding that between developing my own negatives and cyanotype contact printing, it's an acceptable substitute. There's just something about getting your hands wet and the delayed gratification.
@@RickLeMon Glad you have found a middle ground! Alt process on my list 🙌
Yes, I would be interested in seeing more!! New sub, rang the bell, and here’s my comment!! Thanks…
Awesome thank you!
mooooooooooore please (: love to lear more on printing in general. thanks.
@@patricstahl Will do 👍
The question is silly.Will a properly manipulated digital file printed in a calibrated chain get you closer to your intended end result that a process where you introduce unknowns and approximations? Can you tell the two prints apart from each other 2 meters away under a glass? Has the progress in digital image making stalled or can we still see improvements in small detail fidelity? I think the answer can be seen in the number (and the medium age) of skillfull dark room artisans still remainin today.
Early 70's, ton's of hours in the dark and for the most part very enjoyable (B&W, colour - different story, way too stressful) and certain parts I miss. But today I can take a shot, edit it, even print it - before I'm ready to remove the film from the canister. The prints look so much better than anything I ever did (which was never as good as the Kodak paper catalog - damn they were good!). Dust and the room (and the water and mess) needed for a darkroom - I'll never go back.
If only we could get an air freshner that smelled like darkroom......... Oh, there are some old rock in roll songs that take me back to epic darkroom sessions. sigh
It does come with more work as far as dust and cleanup etc... but my favorite images have been ones made in the darkroom listening to some great music!
Definitely would like to see more dark room printing.
As for digital or film. It’s film for me. I feel like I’ve made the print. It’s just got more value. I love to see craftsmen ship. You know someone’s put time and a lot of effort in to it.
And thanks for all the great videos.
Your welcome... thanks for the feedback! I fully understand and agree. However I do believe there is a large number of people who could not tell the difference or care. If they like the image they may appreciate it and possibly buy it. Though these are not the same people who would spend more because of the rare nature and craftmanship of a hand crafted print.
I want to do darkroom printing and I have when I was in college, but I don’t have that extra time after developing my film and scanning it. I feel the inkjet is a little less of a hassle and easier to learn than the darkroom. They use to have people called printers back in the day which was their main job instead of taking photos. That’s what I would do if I know there’s an image I just have to have as a darkroom print.
Time is a real factor... If you ever have that special neg reach out on Insta I will do custom prints on a very limited basis if it's a good fit!
@@Distphoto Wow really appreciate that!
9:21 Yes, especially the Uran enhancer from the 1920s… ;-)
I would love to know if a black and white digital file can be hand printed via darkroom.
Look at the salt print process.
Yes, via a digital negative or digital enlarger 👍🏻
I have made no doubt many thousands of black and white darkroom prints over my lifetime. Evidencing my proficiency in darkroom printing is that I have used my own negatives and resulting prints in a book, "An American in Korea, Two Decades of Photography by MY NAME," published by a commercial, not a vanity, press in Korea. I also have thousands of unprinted black and white negatives that I made in China more recently than I made my Korea negatives. I have never done a single digital print, but need for my China negatives to learn how to do so digitally on the belief, possibly false, that digital printing is both cheaper and faster than analogue. So, just speaking for myself, I could use a very basic, bottom-up video or two on digital printing. More specifically, I need to learn techniques of digital printing that are as similar as possible to analogue (dodging and burning, etc.). This video by you, while excellent, does not quite satisfy my needs since it compares the two types of finished prints, instead of what I do need, a video comparing the processes leading to the prints. That, self-indulgently, is my request to you.
I know enough to dangerous as they say... but am always trying to learn and improve. will give it a go!
For me is easy. Can I split tone a digital print? No I cant. Can I get the contrast absolutely spot on thru a screen? No I cant. Can I enjoy the process of printing in front of a computer? No I cant.
The pleasure of delving into an image for hours, in silence, total concentration... No computer can give me that. This is my opinion. I can't put my soul in a digital print. I don't think somebody can. You said it: they are perfect. Dry, cold. But, if after working for a couple of days on an image, you leave the darkroom to see a well done print under the sunlight... Oh, man, that is so beautiful. They are made of you. :)
Ahh... You get me 👍🏻
RA-4 and B&W silver halide prints give true continuous tone prints, whereas inkjet prints use error diffused half-toning (granted, it's quite good at high DPI). I think this is what makes a good print appear to have more "depth", along with the potentially higher Dmax of silver halide & RA-4 emulsions over inkjet. It's sad that Cibachrome is no longer available, I would have loved to have tried it.
I wish I had tried Cibachrome as well!
I spent about 15 years in darkroom as pro photographer making prints for my clients and publications as well as a number of years as a pro darkroom technician, printing other people’s photos in a very high-end lab.
These days I shoot digital for clients and frequently make prints.
My observation is that images shot on film look their best when they are printed in a darkroom. Images shot on digital cameras look best when printed on inkjet printers.
Whatever capture medium is used, stick to that workflow.
@@stevenhightop2518 Thank you for that insight and your experience… That makes total sense!
For me, the main benefit of digital printing is they're more easily reproducible. So, if you sell prints, that's a benefit. Not the other hand, a silver based print is unique. Each copy is unique, no matter if you do exactly the same process over and over. And the process is all the difference too. I much prefer working on the darkroom than on the computer. The darkroom's mais problem, for me, is I have to clean it all after each use...
But every time I check one of the prints I've made, I remember why I love this. I think film was made to be enlarged, not scanned. You love many information on the process of enlarging. But it's up to you to create the image as you visualized it. You don't stop creating on the shooting. You only end when you enlarge. Since you have less possibilites than on digital, it's up to you to make that image great with what you have, the way you saw it with you mind's eye.
On digital, the possibilities are endless from the moment you turn the camera on. This leads people to shoot 5000 images on a session, which I find absurd. Anyone who shoots 600 images on a session probably does not know what he's doing... Then, most of the time is spent editing on a computer. I agree with you that there are much better places to enjoy photography than in front of a screen :)
By the way, the digital color prints I make are not on these inkjet printers, but on photographic paper, with labs that have Fuji Frontier or Noritsu. Those are real prints, as I see it, even if digitally manipulated. They have the depth and blacks you get on photo paper and that inkjet lack.
But in the end these are two medias, like film and digital. You might prefer one to another but none is bad. It all depends on you photographic history. I'm old school, use film since the 1970's that's why I have these opinions.
Thanks for the video! All the best!
The clean up can bae annoying. after a long session it can feel daunting just to pour the stop bath into a bottle from the tray and wash out the tray. I always stay in longer than planned, thats why I have to be diligent on recording things as they happen... otherwise It's just to much at the end.
I think we should embrace the reproduceable nature of digital printing and use it for marketing, reproductions, etc.. It is a great way to bring awareness to you as an artist. The Darkroom print should be limited and like you say each one is unique for sure to some extent if using an enlarger.
That is really special in photography, especially today. We should embrace this as artists and structure it on a value ladder for promoting ourselves without dilluting our work.
@@Distphoto we share many feelings regarding photography. If the distance were not that much it'd be a pleasure to spend some evenings talking about processes and our common passion. All the best!
@@joseerazevedo Indeed, same to you!
i believe if the darkroom print was made on ilford, and not on foma, then the difference would be even more dramatic. nevertheless, a good video as always, and subject to contemplation. would you make a video about toning the prints? especially some cold-toning…
and, ah, sorry, i see you had a toning video a year ago. gonna watch it now
I really like the Foma papers and feel they are on par with Ilfords. I particularly like there reaction to different developers and toners. Though Ilford is Top notch for sure.
Have some toning stuff I have been considering. For the coldest tones with an archival toner Gold is interesting. If you can get your hands on Tim Rudman's Toning book, that is a great reference.
The photo lab I go to uses a wet /chemical printing machine for film and digital prints. They say they look better than inkjet prints.
I tend to agree that today's Inkjet printers are pretty amazing. I still think the film process has a slight edge. When framed and viewed from a normal distance, I don't think most would see the difference. However, when it comes to color, the pigmented inkjets are going to produce far more archival prints than film/paper. Hands down, they win there.
@@BruceBurke-o6x Thanks Bruce, I think that is why I have not color printed in the darkroom. I think it would be fine and educational but growing up I just stuck with black and white and now I find inkjet or my labs for color to be superior… but I am assuming as I have no first hand experience.
Nothing like the smell of fixer and coffee in the morning! 😁
@@cool555breeze Agreed 👍
thank you for comparison 🧐 in my opinion, film is made for analog printing in an enlarger. stay analog, the complete process.
or verse versa.
Seems to be a popular opinion, thanks!
It's kind of weird seeing this topic from a digital perspective. In my opinion:
1. You do not need a dedicated dark room. If you prints are not bigger than 24x36 (which is what your average inkjet is) the entire setup fits in a normal case. It's a bit bigger than an inkjet, but only a bit. Setting it up anywhere dark is pretty easy.
2. The first time I tried dark room editing I saw that the DIGITAL software is limiting, rather than analog. Analog gave me access to the entire exposure info of my negative, with a very easy and intuitive way to adjust it. Basically infinitely more visual information than any digital software would. The first time you see picture appear, the first time you see how much info actually was in that picture, yeah, you're not going back to editing it digitally. It's pretty much like working with a JPEG vs RAW.
3. Technically, a photo enlarger resolves a negative significantly better than any scanner. Yes, even drum scanner. So when talking about analogue the point is moot.
I'd say one of the bigger cons of the darkroom is the jank. Most darkroom equipment is old and well used. For instance, my wife can't focus the enlarger I use, since it requires a lot of force to move the focus bellows. Lenses are dirty and dusty, controls are sticky. Replacement parts are non-existent, and there are very few people left who can actually maintain your equipment. Finding a used enlarger for cheap is easy. Finding someone to unstuck the focus control is pretty much impossible.
This idea about being 'tied to the computer', what is the problem with that?
I can only speak for myself but it is taking its toll on my eyes… and If I am already editing / business / etc… all day I just do not want to be on the computer anymore. Makes me feel terrible at times. The darkroom usually feels perfect to me comparatively.
I spent many years in the darkroom, bw and ektachrome, and loved it. Not any more, i like digital more and i earn a good wage from it. I do notice a little bit of snobbery coming through, as though film is somehow superior. Dodg, burn and contrast control made plenty of difference in the darkroom, and the most highly regarded photographers in history used those techniques and were never looked down upon. I believe digital is creatively superior to film artistically, and also for technical excellence when required. ✂️😎
I certainly never want to come off like that. I feel both are incredible art forms and one not better than the other.
I think for me I also make a good part of my living from digital photography. It is what I consider "work" so when it comes to doing things for myself I enjoy film more but certainly feel technically digital has surpassed it in many ways.
In fact it drives me crazy when I see crap images shot on film and they are somehow great because of it. I am perfectly capable of shooting terrible images on both!
The creative and artistic side I am not so sure... Some of my favorite images from other photographers were certainly made on film. Not to say they could not have been shot digitally, but they were not.
I disagree in some points: the learning curve for darkroom printing is steep and long too. One will produce good inkjet prints much faster than darkroom prints, which allows much faster iterations. Both are expensive, darkroom printing requires a room, lots of chemistry etc. And for making the wrong adjustments: correct and reprint. Takes 5 minutes instead of half a day. Ultimately it is a moot point, because the quality of the actual image content is relevant.
I believe I agree with all of your points, so if I was unclear in the video I apologize. I very much agree on that the actual image quality first has to be good.
I have to move my enlarger to a small bathroom to print. Not ideal, and I'd probably do more printing if I had a dedicated room, but I get it done when I really want to. And while I think digital photography is generally better and, in all aspects, more practical compared to analog photography, I find the process of analog photography much more satisfying and the finished print feels a lot more special.
I could not agree more!
I have printed in the darkroom and to inkjet and will say that I personally prefer the inkjet, the reason with my time constraints and I can get the print right in editing, save and print it.
Those are perfectly legit reasons in my opinion!
Would silver gelatin paper have made a difference to the dark room print? Forgive my ignorance if it was. I heard it was the gold (or silver!) standard back in the day.
@@philpritchard5173 yup, it was 👍
@@Distphoto got ot tx. I'm impressed to try inkjet then. Good video. Tx
@@philpritchard5173 You’re welcome!
Yes, everyone says to add sharpening but I have found that sharpening is never needed. I have compared digital to darkroom in every way I can and feel confident to say no sharpening is the only way to get natural prints that look like film prints. I have found this rule to be true with Phase One, Leica, Sony and Fujifilm. I have not tried with other cameras.
@@Where_Have_All_My_Files_Gone Seems like sharpening looks better on the screen for me but in print it looks bad. I know people use different amounts for different circumstances.
The weird thing is is that with my portraits shot digitally It does not bother me in print when heavily sharpened most of the time (these are usually lab prints on Kodak Endura or Fuji)
I think I might just be more critical of a black and white print like this one.
My biggest con to darkroom printing? Disposal of used fixer! A problem with film development, too, but there the amount of liquid is lower. Fixer with its silver content is the most problematic chemical in the whole analog process. I'm not sure if using an inkjet printer is more or less environmentally friendly overall, but it's the less annoying solution for me (I just don't have enough room for a darkroom, and using something like a mobile darkroom would make printing on "real" photographic paper even more cumbersome).
Printers and there ink cartridges definetly do not seem super "enviromentally friendly" but it is hard to say which is the lesser evil.
Indeed, luckily I can take my used fixer to a nearby municipal eco center.
@@oudviola Similar for me, but I have no idea what they *do* with the stuff. In the "old days" there were lots of recycling labs which got the silver out of it (they still exist, but only for large photo labs, and I have no lab around that would take my stuff, and the silver content might be far too low to warrant the effort to get the silver out).
@@c.augustin True, but presumably the silver doesn't end up in sewage treatment where it might inhibit bacteria that are part of the system.
@@oudviola Right, better than nothing. Still unsatisfying. But that's the way it goes - not enough analog photographers left for a better solution. ;-)
Did my first B&W prints from 4X5 negatives in 1959. I hate working with small negatives.
Feel the same way!
Great video. thank you !!!
@@gurhanpekuz1813 your welcome!
nice presentation!
Thank you!
Stick with the darkroom videos,
I love your videos.
There are little enough good darkroom videos out there.
There are more than enough ink jet printing videos to keep that side of the craft satisfied.
I LOVE darkroom and will continue to do them but I love printing in general (photography in general actually) so I will mix some other things in from time to time.