Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Monochrome Work > Monochrome printing techniques

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 24th February 2018, 11:54 PM
skellum's Avatar
skellum skellum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Isle of Lewis
Posts: 1,330
Default

I dropped into this thread thinking it related to a query on darkroom print quality.
Rather, it relates to silver Vs Inkjet. Some time ago (nearly ten years?) I participated in a print exchange on the LF forum. We all submitted a dozen identical prints and received back a mixed folio of work by a dozen photographers. Most were Inkjet, and the silver prints were all better. Second time I participated the size was set at 5x7, and on that occasion all the prints were silver. No inkjet. It surprised me, and I wonder if the smaller size was somehow less attractive to workers who had equipped themselves with monster Inkjet machines. So, I'm out of touch with what a really top quality inkjet made by a serious worker with fine materials looks like.
Our local art centre sells ink prints by a few workers. All colour, they range from safely competent to crass (in my own, personal) opinion.

In all honesty, even if someone showed me a really, really fine inkjet tomorrow it wouldn't induce me to change. I have a fine collection of tools (cameras, lenses, enlargers) with which I am familiar. I have an adequate grasp of process, and my prints are of quality which pleases me.
At 56 I'm too old and way too busy to go back to being a novice digital worker. I will continue to shoot film and print silver because in part I prefer it, but also because I bloody well want to, and I don't need any other reason.
Let's remember the proportion of the population which has seen and handled a really fine silver print is now vanishingly small. All the 20 somethings out there have grown up thinking thinking a 'phone is a camera. They view everything on a 'device'. Print quality just means nothing to them
I can only speak for myself, but I want to make good prints. There's a chain of quality- starting with good technique in camera, careful processing, using in-date papers, washing well, even down to drying flat.
Years ago I was lucky enough to see some original prints by Sally Mann on an old Kodak paper- blacks you could just put your hand into. I also went to a large showing of original Ansel Adams prints- his very early work is full of soft focus and gentle contrast, then it ramps up into big, bold, impeccable, operatic printing.

Luminosity- in a great print the highlights somehow look lit from within the paper itself. It's not even about printing with paper base showing- it's more about contrast; having the very lightest most delicate tone in the highlights set against the richest velvety black. Weston could do it, and I think Ravilious (though I haven't seen an original of his).

I've just spent a long time saying I don't care about how modern inkjet compares with silver- I just want to focus on my own print quality, and making the richest, most 'luminous' prints I can.
Cheers All!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 25th February 2018, 07:32 AM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,318
Default

Skellum, I think we are both reading the same book
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 25th February 2018, 03:56 PM
JimW JimW is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 844
Default

Quote:
I will continue to shoot film and print silver because in part I prefer it, but also because I bloody well want to, and I don't need any other reason.
+1
Me too, and very much so. Lots of inkjet (giclee) at work, and it's a case of - Can we sell it? Not, is it the best we can do for the budget, but is it good enough for the customer? Bugs me no end. The customer has no access to anything superior. Lots of friends in the same position, inkjet at home, and I rock up with some silver prints. Guess which ones end up on their walls? Of course, the fact that I make gifts of these prints might have something to do with it (ahem!) but it still feels good to show friends that they don't have to put up with inferior - yes, inferior quality.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 25th February 2018, 05:16 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

I must say that I agree with all thats been posted here, for me it has to be film,silver prints, I have seen Inkjet prints from digital files, and some have been not bad, but for me there has always been something missing, they don't have the Luminosity of silver prints, I find silver prints have more depth than inkjet, the tones, to me, in silver, are just better,a friend, a long time digital photographer, had a little competion, we both took the same photo, from the same spot, he printed inkjet, I printed on FB paper, and we both gave the prints to a independent person, seprately, and a day or so later we were shown the prints, not knowing which was which, the idea to choose the one we liked the best, he chose my print, I chose my print, and several other people chose my print, no one chose the inkjet, tells you something, he now is trying to learn to use film, and wants me to teach him darkroom, I remember a quote from a very famous printer,in a black and white magazine, many many years ago before it became obsesseb with Digital, he said that if asked to make 20 prints of the same negative then he would do his level best to make them all the same, but there were going to be differences, slight, but there as with silver printing there were slight changes to the print, differences in batches of paper, a second or so burning in or dodgeing, it was bound to happen no matter how good you are slight differences would be there in every print,every orint from same negative was very slightly different, the interviewer then asked him about digital/inkjet prints, well, every print would be the same in every print, it was simply silk screen printing,
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 25th February 2018, 07:24 PM
NJHrs NJHrs is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Dorset
Posts: 111
Default

I agree.

People that haven't seen a darkroom B&W print or had forgotten how nice they look are amazed when shown one.

OTOH I think a lot of the poor results from digital imaging chain are a combination of not getting the most out of the post processing chain and poor printing. I went to see an exhibition a couple of years back from a local pro who uses a D800E. I really liked some of his photos but my god his prints sucked big time, really awful flat dull lifeless unsharp prints and not even that big either, most I looked at where about 12x8 or a bit bigger and yet still sucked.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 25th February 2018, 09:50 PM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,318
Default Silver Prints

I find it had to think that some people have never seen a silver base print, it may be that they have seen them but failed to appreciate what they are and the work that went into producing them.

If you don't know what you are looking at, you don't appreciate what it is and the level of interest simply reduces to a passing glance.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 25th February 2018, 10:57 PM
skellum's Avatar
skellum skellum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Isle of Lewis
Posts: 1,330
Default

Hi John- for us it might be hard to think there are people unfamiliar with original silver gelatine photographs, but I think it likely to be true.
Even when film ruled the roost colour was the popular choice for family photos.
Now, the huge majority of digital images taken are shared electronically. I work with a girl who ran her own wedding photography business. She now has a new career, and is almost completely out of photography. It seems customers want to be presented with digital files, and expect hundreds of images of their special day. Literally a tiny handful were printed.
Where will someone of 25 or younger have seen a fine silver original? Gran's framed wedding picture on the wall, perhaps in a gallery if they attend exhibitions, or maybe when their parents crack open their old albums?
What they won't come across is a top quality print, bigger than 10x8, unframed where they can actually see the paper surface. Where would they see such a thing? Not, from he sound of things, even at their local camera club.
I think that is one of the problems any kind of film revival faces; potential film users just aren't seeing the prints which would persuade them the effort was all worth while. I've read a couple of articles suggesting film sales are up- good. However, I also get the feeling that shooting film is often promoted as 'quirky' or 'retro'. New users are tempted in by the presentation of film photography as being counter-culture and cool.
Once there was only film, and the beautiful, iconic images which shape our cultural memory were all made that way. It's almost as if film now has to appeal in some other way, because digital is 'better'.
Yes, modern digital cameras have astonishing low light ability. They are now capable of astounding levels of sharpness and detail collection. Digital photography is the new normal. The long and vitriolic arguments about which is best, beloved of some forums, should be over.

Seems I've wandered off again

We have some fine materials with which to work- PanF, Ilford Fibre Warmtone, Adox MC110, a selection of unusual papers from Foma, toners, and more. Yes, I wish I could still buy Royal Bromesko, HIE and Agfapan 25. But they're gone, they ain't coming back so I have to deal with it.
In short, we can still make beautiful prints if we apply some hard work and time to master the materials we do have.
Good luck in the darkroom everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 26th February 2018, 10:54 AM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John King View Post
I find it had to think that some people have never seen a silver base print, .
Actually my problem is the opposite. I don't think I have ever seen any prints which have not been darkroom printed- such as my own or some small RA4 colour prints from the local and excellent mini-lab which my son or my wife have commissioned.

OK the RA4 prints were exposed from a digital laser enlargers from a digital file( memory card) but I take it the "look" we are talking about stems from genuine paper( silver gelatin or colour) processed in RA4 chemicals or B&W chemicals and not from film per se. In other words the "look" depends on traditional processing methods and not the exposure medium per se?

Thanks

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 26th February 2018, 12:56 PM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray View Post
In other words the "look" depends on traditional processing methods and not the exposure medium per se?

Thanks

Mike
I think you might of got it spot on Mike. For what about scanned film or digital files that are both printed by eg Ilford onto b/w papers. Do these LOOK better than inkjet just because they are printed on PROPER darkroom / photo paper?

Terry S
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 26th February 2018, 05:07 PM
NJHrs NJHrs is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Dorset
Posts: 111
Default

I think so yes. I had some scans recently printed by AG onto Fujiflex by the RA4 laser exposure method. I was amazed how good they turned out in terms of depth of colour and tonality. My only regret is that I didn't sharpen the files much more, I was worried about the output showing grain or artefacts but they look really smooth albeit a bit mushy at the size printed (24x16 from 35mm). What is really annoying is that the fine detail is there if the print is eyeballed. The Fujiflex however has massive impact which only underlies my feeling it is nothing to do with the capture medium and everything to do with the quality of the print output.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Water Quality Bill Monochrome Film 8 22nd February 2015 11:11 AM
Print quality from 35mm ecosse Darkroom 34 3rd December 2011 09:41 AM
Format and Print Size Quality Issues StuartR Photography in general 11 5th December 2010 08:01 PM
Web Quality StuartR Photography in general 5 18th December 2009 08:44 PM
Father & son quality time... Paul Mitchell Photography in general 6 23rd December 2008 10:09 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.