Slowly going the way of the buffalo...

[Karalee]

I fully appreciate that others love the darkroom, and I think that's great. What I don't understand is how so many people don't seem to understand that I don't love it, and it's not because I don't "get" the darkroom. I just plain don't like what it involves. I hate it. I guess I'm just tired of people not accepting that and thinking that I don't like it because I haven't given it a chance, and trying to convince me otherwise.

Well put, are we supposed to force tomatoes on people that dont like to eat them. Its all a matter of personal choice.

 

[ksmattfish]

I've had people mistake my work for fiber prints.

Not darkroom geeks.

 

[ksmattfish]

what if i kept my old film camera, and got a digital!!! YAY!!

Sounds like the perfect solution.

By the way, there are now counties in western Kansas that have many more bison than people. The bison are coming back, and all the people are dying or moving to the bigger cities. When I am truely a crusty, old fart this is where you will find me and my LF film gear.
ldman:

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

You don't get the satisfaction, but that's the whole point: everyone is different. I experienced nothing but frustration. Digital blows film out of the water for me. I don't care how many points a person makes about film being better. If I'm too disgruntled with the process, I don't make pictures. I'll take a workflow that I enjoy and can produce with anyday. And while it isn't the same as film, I'm quite happy with my B&W output. I've had people mistake my work for fiber prints.

You're right, sorry about getting kinda preachy in my previous post. Everyone should go back and mentally change all my yous to I (i won't do it cuz it would make Markc's post look wierd) . Sorry I made assumptions about other people's views

 

[markc]

I've had people mistake my work for fiber prints.

Not darkroom geeks.

Does someone with decades of experience and teaches at the university level count? He's not Ansel Adams, but he knows what he's doing.

I hand the bare print to him, he spends a minute looking it over, looks at me and asks, "Is this fiber?", then remembers how I work and says, "This is digital?!" in an incredulous tone. He then tells me that it's very close to a fiber print (and he probably has the sharpest eye for such things out of who I know). I think the paper I used was thinner than what he was used to for fiber paper. Maybe other people could tell. I don't know. But once it's behind glass, I have yet had anyone know that it's digital without me telling them.
http://www.piezography.com/exhibition-printing.html

I understand that people can only judge based on their experience, and most people have not experienced good digital b&w digital prints. I just would like people to have an open mind about what else is out there that they may have not seen yet.

 

[drlynn]

Part of your success may be the fact that you started out with film, have darkroom experience, and know what a good b&w print is supposed to look like.

A lot of people snap a shot, click the desaturate button in photoshop and think they have a masterpiece.

For me, I have a 4mp Olympus that takes great pics, but it will never replace my film cameras.

 

[markc]

Thanks, tr0gd0o0r.

 

[metroshane]

I've been shooting with a Canon 10D and absolutely love it. As a matter of fact, it gets better everytime I shoot with it.

Recently I picked up a Mamiya RB 67 and have been shooting 6X7. I thought it would up my game...but it really hasn't. I mean I love looking thru ground glass, but on the shoots where I've taken both cameras...the 10D has come out the clear winner. Maybe I'm just not good at medium format yet, but the digital pics have blown away the mamiya ones. Especially when you consider that I can fire off 250 shots in the time it takes me to reload the mamiya!

I'll probably keep it for shits and grins...but it won't be my work horse.

 

[Sharkbait]

Part of your success may be the fact that you started out with film, have darkroom experience, and know what a good b&w print is supposed to look like.

A lot of people snap a shot, click the desaturate button in photoshop and think they have a masterpiece.

For me, I have a 4mp Olympus that takes great pics, but it will never replace my film cameras.

With all due respect, I disagree. The last time I set foot in a darkroom was when I dated a photographer in college and had no idea what the difference was between a point-and-shoot and an slr. I have some 'bought' prints hanging on my walls, as well as a couple of mine (all b&w). Me, personally, I can't tell the difference. Neither can anyone else...they're always shocked to see my signature on the ones that are mine.

That being said, there IS more to it than simply desaturating a color print in PS and calling it good.

 

[ksmattfish]

I've had people mistake my work for fiber prints.

Not darkroom geeks.

I just would like people to have an open mind about what else is out there that they may have not seen yet.

Sorry, not trying to rile up the digi crowd

I've seen some mighty fine BW digital printing, but it doesn't look the same as a fiber gelatin silver print to me. Different doesn't mean bad or lower quality, just different. I don't expect an oil painting to look the same as a watercolor.

And the only reason I even peep up about this is because I've had that said to me several times ("...looks like a fiber print..."), and then we compare my FB prints to their digital prints, and I point out the differences, and then they see them too. Their prints are good, and my prints are good (IMHO), but there is a subtle difference. Digital printing is good enough to stand on it's own, and many photogs are getting better results than they did in the darkroom. I plan on continuing to study and use both methods, and whatever comes down the pipe next

This conversation reminds me of a situation years ago when I was in school and doing a lot of color hand printing in the college darkroom. I was using 35mm Royal Gold ISO 25 with a polarizer and on a tripod to take the shots. The 11"x14" prints were so sharp and color saturated that folks constantly kept asking me "These are digital prints, right?".

 

[markc]

And the only reason I even peep up about this is because I've had that said to me several times ("...looks like a fiber print..."), and then we compare my FB prints to their digital prints, and I point out the differences, and then they see them too. Their prints are good, and my prints are good (IMHO), but there is a subtle difference. Digital printing is good enough to stand on it's own, and many photogs are getting better results than they did in the darkroom.

I think we're on the same page, then. That's exactly why I didn't claim that they were indistinguishable from fiber prints, I only said that others thought they were similar. I'm not familiar enough with fiber to spot subtle differences myself. I have one here that doesn't look much different from my own, but I don't know what to look for. For what it's worth, I don't consider prints off of a color printer to be a top-notch digital b&w print; only those from a quad or hex tone systems.

As a point of education, what would you say the differences are?

 

[ksmattfish]

As a point of education, what would you say the differences are?

I am talking about BW digital prints that are printed in the photog's home. Some of these guys have some pretty fancy equipment, although it may not be anywhere near what can be done in a top of the line digital print lab these days. Of course, if I can't do digital in my home, I'm really not interested in it; that's the big draw for me.

As you mentioned, the paper itself can be a give away. There are many more varieties for digital prints.

I look at the highlights. Usually this is where I spot it. I don't exactly know how to describe it, but I can point it out. Digital has a different look, particularly in fine details in bright highlights. When I say digital, I mean a print from a file, whether it was shot on film and scanned or shot with a digital camera.

Then I look at the mid tones. Sometimes I'll find weird tonal separations (they almost remind me of solarization). I think these are from tweaking curves too much.

I find it much easier to spot the difference in BW prints, although I can use these same things with color images. More and more people are fooling me with the color digital print these days; maybe tomorrow the BWs will fool me too.

I'm in the darkroom printing several times a week, and spend hours scrutinizing my prints. When I see something interesting hanging on a wall somewhere, I tend to give it the same intense scrutiny. If I think a print is digital, I don't really care, I'm just always curious as to the photographers methods. Of course, as with anybody, I will identify a little more with a photog who uses similar techniques as I do.

 

[markc]

if I can't do digital in my home, I'm really not interested in it; that's the big draw for me.

Exactly for me, too. Otherwise I'd still be using film and letting a lab print my work.

Thanks for the info. It all makes sense to me. And yeah, highlights are a tough area for digital printing.

 

[havoc]

Mark i understand your frustration wth the technical aspect of B&W. There are so many variables when dealing with chemicals and film that it can frustrate anyone. I myself get frustrated all the time with the chemical process. I like the instantanious nature of digital. But i also love the art of film. I have not yet developed a love for the art of photoshop, though as time goes on i am sure i will.
Film printing always pisses me off, i can never get it just right. But i think that critical look at ones own work is the artistic process working. I will not give up film anytime soon. I plan on buying a digital come this fall. As for what cameras i will use? I am thinking i will use digital for most everyday stuff, a 4X5 and maybe 6x7 for all my srtsy stuff. As for the 35mm cam. i am struggling to find a use for it much longer, perhaps Kodak IR? and slide work for my portfolio. Those are really the only two uses i can come up for it at this point. I will keep one around i think, but i don't see it getting much use.

 

[photong]

I would go digital if I could afford it. I couldn't tell you what camera. And I don't count the fact that I have Fujifilm A303 being digital because I can't do anything with it :/ I am very limited.

I would prolly go with a Canon because I LOVE Canon cameras.

My Fujilm if good for a mini digi. And the Fujis2pro I used at work is great.

However I don't have anything to compare to so this is from what I know. Nikon has amazing lenses That's pretty much all I know/heard

I don't think you can double expose with digital. If you could that would rock (aside from using a long exposure I mean.). Plus I also don't know if you can use some sort of cable release? I think these are an issue for me, not sure about you.