Black and White prints

[DeadEye]

I visited a local coffie shop were the wall is filled with prints for sale by local photogs. By far the best there were from a local who did mostly Black and White "THEY WERE ART',:hail: very nice and I really thought done with film. Wile I was there he showed up, so I asked as to his dark room set up. WELL they were digital made to LOOK LIKE FILM. Very good high quality prints.. I asked as to the processing to get the look and found out that its not done by computter but rather by a custom mixing of ink on the ink jet printer. Tweeking the magenta mostly. Any one here do this and know the proper mix?

 

[Alpha]

See here:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104291

It's definitely possible, but tedious, often frustrating, and can be very costly to set up.

 

[MACollum]

I just read about this in one of the National Geographic Field Guides (the B&W one). It does sound expensive, and a pain in the butt as well!

 

[JIP]

I don't know, all this talk about a "pain in the butt" or dificulty of getting quality B+W digital prints it seems to me if you are shooting film there is a "pain in the butt" involved as well. I mean think about it you are using toxic chemicals that are going to (at the least) give you contact dermatitis on your hands and at worst lots more. You go through paper laden with heavy metals and run all the waste down the drain I am sure poisoning the water supply. In the end playing with tweaking mixtures of inks to make a few prints seems like the better alternative to me.

 

[Alpha]

I don't know, all this talk about a "pain in the butt" or dificulty of getting quality B+W digital prints it seems to me if you are shooting film there is a "pain in the butt" involved as well. I mean think about it you are using toxic chemicals that are going to (at the least) give you contact dermatitis on your hands and at worst lots more. You go through paper laden with heavy metals and run all the waste down the drain I am sure poisoning the water supply. In the end playing with tweaking mixtures of inks to make a few prints seems like the better alternative to me.

My reply to this thread was in reference to the pain in the ass part, not necessarily the darkroom part (though I do think it's a wonderful option for anyone with some time on their hands).

You seem to have a lot of "mis"-information, though.

Darkroom chemicals are not really very toxic, at least not in the way that you're referring to. The most toxic thing I use in my darkroom is probably my fixer (ammonium thiosulfate), which does smell a bit off if you stick your nose in it but certainly is no more "toxic" than a bottle of Windex.

If you're intelligent, you'll wear gloves, and spare yourself any skin troubles.

Get a silver recovery system. The other heavy metals, like cadmium, that really are terrible for the environment, have all been discontinued in photo papers by the EPA.

You're not doing a whole hell of a lot of excess harm to the environment either. There are any number of facilities that would be more than happy to dispose of your chemical waste if you're uncomfortable pouring it down the drain. In fact, you're likely doing much more damage every time you toss some bleach in with your whites, clean the soap-scum off of your shower, or perform any other routine chemical-involved maintenance around the house. Talk about waste disposal...how many times have you properly disposed of your empty ink cartridges? Those aren't so environmentally friendly either, you know. Nor is it so great for the environment when you throw away your obsolete printer every year and a half.