Darkroom or photoshop?

Published on November 12, 2005 By momijiki In Photography

I love printing in the darkroom. Ok, it's dark and that can be a little annoying, but I like all the fiddling that goes with creating a good print. Maybe there is some part of me that likes playing with chemicals, although, I sure don't like getting them on me.

I don't have my own darkroom yet. I've been using the one at school after I finish my classes and prep. It is really nice to create something before going home. I like doing the test strip, dodging, burning, flashing... all good stuff. Yet, it's a bit incovenient because I have to be at school to do this so the time available to me is limited. Plus, I also can't freshen up the chemicals whenever I like.

As a stop-gap, I have been scanning my slides and negatives and printing them out. This works out not too badly. I get a copy for fairly cheap (compared to going to a shop) and without much mess.

It is a lot easier to fine tune parts of the image on photoshop. I met a guy who is an absolute master at this. My photography instructor thinks he is probably the best in Asia doing this professionally. Matsu was able to make minute changes on my instructor's prints that my instructor said he wouldn't have been able to recreate in the darkroom. Food for thought.

But try as I might, I may never get to Matsu's level of mastery, but to get better results from what I am doing, I need to get better equipment: a higher resolution scanner and a better printer. But to be honest, I am not really willing to spend those kind of big bucks now. Certainly not until I attain a better level of competency with what I am doing or until I am able to sell some work to make it worthwhile to do that.

And there's also the rabbit hole of better and better technology. With digitial equipment, there's always an upgrade to be had. With the darkroom, you can get beautiful, effective results with old, standard equipment. I prefer to shoot black and white and the darkroom prints are better, unless you are paying heaps of money to digital artists like Matsu to get your work digitized and printed on top-line stuff.

In terms of space and environmental concerns, digital is the clear winner (as long as you aren't tossing your old equip into landfill).

Comments

KarmaGirl

on Nov 14, 2005

You can get very good results in photoshop, but not so much when scanning then working on them. You need to start with a high megapixel digital image, then work with it. I have a 12 megapixel camera, which is really the low end for professional digital work, and it is acceptable for work in photoshop. I have had medium format negs and prints digitized, and they just are acceptable.

You can send off your work to pro labs to have printed (which they print as a regular photo process using a laser instead of a negative) and get excellent results.

The problem is: you can print in a darkroom on a low budget (even if you buy it yourself and pay for all the chemicals) or you can send it out for fairly cheap. Digital, well, it's not cheap. You are going to spend about $4,000 minimum on a camera, and that's not even truly a 35mm. To get full 35mm, you will be paying about $14,000 for the camera. Want medium format? $6500 will buy a nice film medium format, you';; be forking over more than $24,000 for digital. Then you need a computer and a photoshop license.

In the end, if you are really wanting to produce prints that look like they are not digitally enhanced, you really need to learn darkroom techniques prior to going digital. And, no matter what, if you don't learn how to produce a good image, you could be a god in PS and still have a bad image in the end.

momijiki

on Nov 14, 2005

And, no matter what, if you don't learn how to produce a good image, you could be a god in PS and still have a bad image in the end.

Yep. That is really the beginning and ending of the whole process. If you start out with a bad image (composition etc) there's not a whole lot one can do in the darkroom or in PS to save it.

There are other options for medium format without going the Hasselblaad(sp?)and friends route. I just started using a Holga (granted not even a QUARTER as nice as a hassleblaad) and getting "interesting" images. $60 dollars and away you go.

I have also been reading about twin lense cameras like the Rolliflex. A couple hundred and really old school, but you're into the medium format. Then again, this would be hobby not pro photos.

But yeah, digital to digital seems better. Scanning is really a stop gap.

Digital, well, it's not cheap. You are going to spend about $4,000 minimum on a camera, and that's not even truly a 35mm. To get full 35mm, you will be paying about $14,000 for the camera. Want medium format? $6500 will buy a nice film medium format, you';; be forking over more than $24,000 for digital. Then you need a computer and a photoshop license.

And there is that rabbit hole once you embrace the digital route! $14 000! Ouch! And then how long until that is no longer industry standard? Scary stuff, but great for the photo companies.

stubbyfinger

on Nov 15, 2005

It all depends on what type of photography you want to do. A news or magazine photographer would rarely if ever need more than 5 megapixel to do the job, and for them there is no other option than digital. These photographers used to spend 10 to 20k a year just on film. Digital pays for itself pretty quick if your taking lots of pictures.

If your field requires large pints and you need a large format digital back most photographers just lease the camera for couple of years then trade up so there technology stays up to date and they don’t have to shell out 25k.

If you plan on selling your photographs as art then the choice becomes more difficult. Photographs created in the darkroom will always have more value than digital prints.

If I were you I would do both. A Nikon D50 and Epson R800 will produce professional lab quality 8 x 10 prints and will only cost a $1000

momijiki

on Nov 16, 2005

Good advice, Stubbyfinger.

And the rental thing is just something I recently discovered. Not that I'm renting Haselblaad, but I have tried out some neat lenses this way.

Do you like the Nikon better than the Canon 20D?

I have heard a lot of good things about that Epson.

stubbyfinger

on Nov 16, 2005

momijiki

Image quality wise there about the same, the 20D is considered a pro-sumer camera wile the D50 is an entry level DSLR. The 20D is a better camera but it’s twice as much and is over a year old, whilst the Nikon is just out. If you already have one or more canon lenses then I would get the canon or wait for their next model otherwise the Nikon is much more bang for the buck.

Link

Link

The R800 or R1800 (large format version) are finest photo printers available at this time. I’ve had the R800 for a year now and it works flawlessly. I often scan professional prints, color correct and or touch them up, then re-print without any loss of quality. And the prints last 75+ years under glass. Even without any manipulation the R800 prints look at least as good if not better than originals. If it’s been off for a while it has this lengthy warm up calibrations dance it has to go through that’s a little annoying but other than that it’s the best desktop photographic printer money can by.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!