the future of developing/printing?

[student]

purchase the latest Adobe Photoshop, including yourself... we will see, alright? Always remember me, whenever you see a friend of yours quitting a darkroom for the change to digital. Thanks! Maybe not today, but as time comes...(by the way, please learn to "Quote" properly. Your reply is all over... and chaotic.)

Kes: I was born, raised and trained in Digital Imaging world.
And im very happy and glad to be in it. :thumbsup:

1 I WILL BE buying Photoshop CS2 VERY VERY soon. Original! And I really do not have to remember you for this. I had already made up my mind that Photoshop and digital imaging is very useful. I know what the role of digital imaging is, and I know where to place it. And that knowledge did not come from you. If I am not mistaken, my "band of brothers" may be even more knowledgeable than you in digital imaging! And you did them disservice to imply that they have not their own mind, but blindly "support" me!

2 Thank you highlighting my inept ability with quoting. I agree indeed that I am very bad on this. But honestly, does it matter? Are my points wrong? Hopefully your reading have improved and you realise much of what you said were, well.......... I notice a trend that when someone cannot give a coherent reply, they usually resort to childlish things like, "you cannot quote properly, or in some other cases, your grammar is bad"

3 To give you a little credit, you are at least "honest" and came out clean admitting that you "were born and raised in digital imaging world". Well, then, how do you expect anyone to take your opinion on traditional darkroom when you know nothing about it? "Nonsense" is actually quite polite. Could have been worse.

 

[pipefish]

Waiaung:

To better understand why most here are so passionate about analog black and white, you first need to see a good print (and not those horrible things that the lab gives you).

And although most commercial photographers are using digital (in big part because instant playback is a must for art directors of magazines etc), most fine art photographers still use film. You may wish to have a look at:

www.michaelkenna.net
www.carofano.com
www.stillsgallery.com.au (see Trent Parke and Narelle Autio)

These photographers are all still alive and respected in their fields.

Digital definitely has very significant advantages over film. But if you are willing to spend a little time in the darkroom printing your own photos, you might love film too.

 

[raine]

But we shall see how many of your "BROTHERS of the DARKROOM" will quit that very darkroom in 10 yrs from now and purchase the latest Adobe Photoshop, including yourself... we will see, alright?

I've got photo shop, but i'll never quit the darkroom... You really should try it. Its absolutely magical. The dripping taps... the sound of running water, the smell of chemicals and the soapy feeling on your hands. The gentle sloshing of your chemicals against the trays as you agitate as gently as you can. And you peer through the dim and warm red lights in the darkroom, looking, and waiting, and that very moment when you see a plain piece of white paper suddenly begin to light up and the images start to creep out of the white paper..The magic begins. Magical and priceless. The experience is something that the digital world will never be able to buy lah...

That's why i think even after 10 years from now, mr.Student will still have his brothers of the darkroom with him, and i'll be one of them!!!! not a brother, but a sista!!! :bsmilie:

 

[theITguy]

waiaung, I started from the digital world too


I think this digital vs analog thing is starting again. While I shoot primarily in slides (oh cannot afford DSLR what to do) and do not foresee myself shooting digital in the near future, I would also encourage others to use digital if their form of presentation is in digital (easier access to projector, printing). End of the day it is just a preference to how you want to present your pictures, be it others think it is good or not good.

 

[hongsien]

he!he! it is so funny reading this thread! Some people really are so damned sensitive!

I only will switch to digital cams and film if they can emulate the Tri-X grain, AND equal convential bromide paper......Epson does a good job for colour, but it is not there for black and white bromide quality yet.....still waiting....

It is easy for one to say digital is almost equal/or equal to flm when one doesn't have a clue of the higher-end black and white prints (not those black and white prints from the shops)......

Jobs wise, many have not much choice, as digital is so much faster in getting results,and you can immediately show the image to the client. And one doesn't need to keep the setups in place till you get the film back from developing....

HS

 

[ellery]

That is very rude of you to accuse me of speaking nonsense. Since you do have some supporters under this forum,.
Anyway, i am not suprised that you have band of brothers here to defend with you, since I am talking in the Traditional DarkRoom forum. So be it...

But we shall see how many of your "BROTHERS of the DARKROOM" will quit that very darkroom in 10 yrs from now and purchase the latest Adobe Photoshop, including yourself... we will see, alright? Always remember me, whenever you see a friend of yours quitting a darkroom for the change to digital. Thanks! Maybe not today, but as time comes...(by the way, please learn to "Quote" properly. Your reply is all over... and chaotic.)

Kes: I was born, raised and trained in Digital Imaging world.
And im very happy and glad to be in it. :thumbsup:

I read your post so far and it shows a marked bias in your thinking. You have concluded that digital will be be able to meet and surpass the output from film media. That is a conclusion that may not be accurate when you consider that film media also include medium format and more importantly large format. If you are trying to reafirm that you are supporting the "correct" group - fine it makes you happy but what is true for you may not be true for everyone else.

Even on 35mm format, there are certain feel and effects that digital cannot generate but film does by virtual of its medium. Since this is a black and white discussion are - the "holy grail" of replicating film grain to get the look of tri -x or which ever film of choice is still a on going search. Digital files tend to have little or no grain effect - outputing to either color prints or ink jets do not give 100% identical look and "feel" of a silver geletine film enlarged onto black and white photographic paper. Digital wll get better yes but since the 2 technologies are inheriently different one cannot replicate the feel of the other identically.

By your logical system, old fashion painting paints onto a canvas should not be here, since a film base camera can do this better. We both know that oil painting is very much alive today still. Life is not a mutal exclusive event - if any thing its mutally non exclusive - as long as there exists a niche for a life form to exits in, it will be there.

I work from both film and digital and also inbtween the 2. I would not consider myself as a master but as a basic journeyman just able to see a little of the complexities that exits. There is room now and even in the future for both since situtations will occur when one is more appropriate media to use than the other to better translate the vision you have into a print. The ability to choose and use the most appropiate tools to do the job is one of the hallmarks of a competent craftsman. Picture making is a craft, taking picture is an activity that does not require people to think too much.

 

[bwfilm4ever]

But we shall see how many of your "BROTHERS of the DARKROOM" will quit that very darkroom in 10 yrs from now and purchase the latest Adobe Photoshop, including yourself... we will see, alright? Always remember me, whenever you see a friend of yours quitting a darkroom for the change to digital. Thanks! Maybe not today, but as time comes...

I totally agreed with you that in 10 years time, there will be more people shooting with digital camera and using Photoshop maybe by then its version 100.0? Maybe by then, any school student will know how to use photoshop or it has become a part of their school work. Maybe by then you had spend more than 100K in upgrading your camera, your computer hardware, your editing software and time exploring the manual of your software. Maybe by then, just few clicks of buttons, the system will edit your photo to create the DIGITAL IMAGE you want. Maybe not 10 years, 5 years?

I still use a camera much older than me and I start learning to using an enlarger maybe 5 years or more years older than me? I am not a commercial photographer so I don't really care to own a digital camera. But I could be an artist (in photography) someday, maybe 5 years or 10 years from now. Every shot I took, I took it with my utmost passion thinking that I only left with 1 roll even though the results now are not very satisfactory.

I spent some time developing and printing. I showed the end results to some senior "BROTHERS of the DARKROOM" for advice. Hopefully my next roll of film, I can develop and print better than the last. Some of my friends shooting with digitatl have different approach, they always say, can PS what?

It is true that the end results for a digital image can produce better results compare to traditional darkroom (I yet to find out), maybe with alot of new plugins? But can we really say that this is our work? Can you really get your satisfaction or proud to say that this is all done my me. I shoot, I developed and therefore I printed?

It is also true that you can print the SAME image over and over again, 100% identical just like photocopying when we you put it on to the xerox machine. But then, can your each piece of work be called ORIGINAL? Will your work be called a PHOTOCOPIED or a POSTER? Where is your ORIGINAL IMAGE, in a disc? For us, we have the NEGATIVE. That's no one can doubt that its OUR WORK!

In commercial sense, I would feel that a buyer would pay much more higher for a NEGATIVE then to an IMAGE stored on disc (I am comparing both photographer of a same standard). Don't agree, nevermind.

A true "BROTHERS of the DARKROOM" will never quit because each day they are getting wiser and more experience in handling your manaul camera and darkroom and its VALUE increases time after time. Ultimately, "BROTHERS of the DARKROOM', will not compare their equipments but skills. The only time that we compare the equipment will be, who uses the oldest and simplest camera to produce the best results. My motto is (cause I can't speak for them) is: We don't buy buy buy, We show show show.

 

[hongsien]

I think there should be a distinction made between colour prints and high quality, gallery quality (bromide or not) black and white prints.......

digital prints at this moment, just can't match traditional black and white prints, and there are some other personal preferences some photographers have........and I really don't know how long it will take to have a digital print that can match a high quality black and white print.

I believe this is what the discussion was all about, not about colour digital prints, that is now already matching traditional colour prints. People here seem to just mix these two, while they are two completely different things......

Hong Sien

 

[ellery]

I think there should be a distinction made between colour prints and high quality, gallery quality (bromide or not) black and white prints.......

digital prints at this moment, just can't match traditional black and white prints, and there are some other personal preferences some photographers have........and I really don't know how long it will take to have a digital print that can match a high quality black and white print.

I believe this is what the discussion was all about, not about colour digital prints, that is now already matching traditional colour prints. People here seem to just mix these two, while they are two completely different things......

Hong Sien

it is a little difficult for a digital camera user not use color print paper since that is one of the 2 main channels of print output for digital files adjusted in PS to look like black and white. The other being ink jet. Dye subs and color lasers are also alternative avennues of output but each has its limitations and strong points.

anyways there is unfortunately also a difference from prints print via a neg and via a digital camera's file from the same digital photo lab printer. But that as we agree is a total different topic.

 

[theITguy]

On an off topic, while I was shopping at Taka 2 days back, I saw a lot of posters with backlighting. They are big big ones, like 4 by 6 feet or bigger? Maybe 6 by 9 feet I am not exactly sure, but around there definitely. Far away it looks great (6-10m), close up to <1m, I can see the grain (big grain) as most likely they are shot with a MF film, or maybe 35mm film camera?

 

[waiaung]

1 I WILL BE buying Photoshop CS2 VERY VERY soon. Original! And I really do not have to remember you for this. I had already made up my mind that Photoshop and digital imaging is very useful. And that knowledge did not come from you. If I am not mistaken, my "band of brothers" may be even more knowledgeable than you in digital imaging!

You've just bad mouthed Digital Imaging down the drain, and you're going to Buy Adobe Photoshop?

2 Thank you highlighting my inept ability with quoting. I agree indeed that I am very bad on this. But honestly, does it matter? Are my points wrong? Hopefully your reading have improved and you realise much of what you said were, well.......... I notice a trend that when someone cannot give a coherent reply, they usually resort to childlish things like, "you cannot quote properly, or in some other cases, your grammar is bad"

Thats the conclusion you took yourself. Not by me. By the way, I am not sure if your points were correct or wrong, cos I skipped them, since its too chaotic to continue reading.

..."Nonsense" is actually quite polite. Could have been worse.

Okay, from this i can judge what kind of person you are. So im not going to continue talking to you after this. I shall keep my standard elsewhere, which wouldnt match yours.



For the people with rest of the replies, yes, I know darkroom is fun, many ppl told me so. Many golfers said golf is fun. Many Xbox gamers told me XBox is fun. Well, I do not say they are not fun. My interests just aint there.

I am replying here, because this guy just replied my post very very impolitely (or up to his politeness standard), and I appreciate all the rest of the replies from other persons here, and your polite way of putting things up, and I have no disrespect to Traditional Darkroom for your information.

I just believe in Digital, it has many pros and cons compared to Traditional Darkroom today. You can believe in whatever you want, and its your passion and its your choice. All things are beautiful when everyone knows manners... thanks!

 

[student]

You've just bad mouthed Digital Imaging down the drain, and you're going to Buy Adobe Photoshop?

Thats the conclusion you took yourself. Not by me. By the way, I am not sure if your points were correct or wrong, cos I skipped them, since its too chaotic to continue reading.

Okay, from this i can judge what kind of person you are. So im not going to continue talking to you after this. I shall keep my standard elsewhere, which wouldnt match yours.

For the people with rest of the replies, yes, I know darkroom is fun, many ppl told me so. Many golfers said golf is fun. Many Xbox gamers told me XBox is fun. Well, I do not say they are not fun. My interests just aint there.

I am replying here, because this guy just replied my post very very impolitely (or up to his politeness standard), and I appreciate all the rest of the replies from other persons here, and your polite way of putting things up, and I have no disrespect to Traditional Darkroom for your information.

I just believe in Digital, it has many pros and cons compared to Traditional Darkroom today. You can believe in whatever you want, and its your passion and its your choice. All things are beautiful when everyone knows manners... thanks!

I am really a very, very, BAD, IMPOLITE, monster, especially to he....

Who knows not he knows not, but pretends to know a lot, and then try to show off that he know a lot, but confusing those who know not with his know-nots.

For these types I reserve my most harsh di.....n, and I lose my manners completely. It is wise (finally! even some ..... can learn! hope for humaity!) that you decide to stop talking. Otherwise you might just continue to show your know nots.

 

[canturn]

he!he! it is so funny reading this thread! Some people really are so damned sensitive!

I only will switch to digital cams and film if they can emulate the Tri-X grain, AND equal convential bromide paper......Epson does a good job for colour, but it is not there for black and white bromide quality yet.....still waiting....

And maybe when photoshop can emulate tonal response of tri-x or t-grain film...

Also, by the time digi cams can switch between the different emulated film type, plus developer type in the RAW work flow (would be fun to see a Rodinal digital workflow for RAW files, hehe).

Maybe then, I'll quit B&W completely :devil:

At the moment, for someone who don't shoot b&w film, they won't understand that noise in Photoshop can never substitute grain :devil:

 

[student]

And maybe when photoshop can emulate tonal response of tri-x or t-grain film...

Also, by the time digi cams can switch between the different emulated film type, plus developer type in the RAW work flow (would be fun to see a Rodinal digital workflow for RAW files, hehe).

Maybe then, I'll quit B&W completely :devil:

At the moment, for someone who don't shoot b&w film, they won't understand that noise in Photoshop can never substitute grain :devil:

I am quite sure that one day, the digital workflow can emulate the tonal responses of any b&W films. I have seen many really high end digital B&w images. And they are beautiful! No question about that. My thoughts on this is in a thread "Vegetarian Charsiew and Supermarket Bananas" in the General... subforum.

But these digital prints are not silver halide. Just as a vegetarian charsiew will never be pork charsiew. It does not matter how beautiful digital prints are. It does not matter how tasty vegetarian charsiew are. They will still be different.

There is a renaissance in black & white traditional photography today. The sales of largeformat cameras have rocketed! While the big boys have made decisions based on short term financial gains, others have sprouted up to take their places.

As far as the original question is concerned, ie whether traditional farkroom techniques will be a lost art. My simple answer is NO!

This is not an issueof traditional versus digital. This is an not an argument whether traditional is better or vice versa. What one likes is besides the point. I happen to still prefer the traditional print, while some of my friends are working in the digital media. But traditional prints will be there for a long time, just as painting was not made a "lost art" by photography.

 

[canturn]

But these digital prints are not silver halide. Just as a vegetarian charsiew will never be pork charsiew. It does not matter how beautiful digital prints are. It does not matter how tasty vegetarian charsiew are. They will still be different.

We're talking to the purists here.

It's the process and not just the product that I enjoy about B&W.

 

[student]

We're talking to the purists here.

It's the process and not just the product that I enjoy about B&W.

Besides the prints, what you mentioned about the process is also very true for me. I sit next to a computer the whole day. And I really do not want to work on the computer if i can help it.

I like the solitude of the darkroom. Some music. The warm glow of the safelight. It is therapeutic. No rush (cannot anyway!) No frantic clicking the mouse. And when the print comes out, taking the print and look at it "contemplatingly". Making judgements. And another print. Testing one self. Nothing instantaneous.

A far cry from the "instant" world. Instant review and gratification. Instant effects, etc. _

Preferences.

 

[canturn]

Besides the prints, what you mentioned about the process is also very true for me. I sit next to a computer the whole day. And I really do not want to work on the computer if i can help it.

I like the solitude of the darkroom. Some music. The warm glow of the safelight. It is therapeutic. No rush (cannot anyway!) No frantic clicking the mouse. And when the print comes out, taking the print and look at it "contemplatingly". Making judgements. And another print. Testing one self. Nothing instantaneous.

A far cry from the "instant" world. Instant review and gratification. Instant effects, etc. _

Preferences.

You forgot this - no two darkroom prints from the same neg can ever be identical. Just like Mahjong, you'll never get the exact same tiles.

Also, there's no one else to blame if the negatives get messed up...nor can you screw anyone for not washing the print thoroughly enough when the fixer stains show up on your paper during selenium toning. :bsmilie:

Film development is Chemistry, but many don't realise that printing is an Art.

 

[tim]

Do you think that the traditional darkroom techniques are going to be a lost art form in the future. With every one going digital and simply going on a computer or camera to make an image black and white that it will become something only a few actually will be able to do. Companies might stop producing the chemicals required. I am glad that I know the process the steps to develop and print my own stuff, and seeing what each developer is capable of. It also makes me appreciate digital more as I know printing and developing film is a pain in the a$s that you have to be in the right mood for. Nothing is better than dropping the paper in the developer and seeing the image appear "magically" on the paper. But I hate when that same paper later bends when it's dried.

As the original question was not "digital vs analog" and the subject were debated many times in this forum and other international forums. Those are subjective e.g. personal preferences, opinions, convenience or reasons. There are no right or wrong, to each his own.

The question were; Are traditional darkroom going to be a lost art form in the future?

IMO, a big NO. It will not be a "lost art".

 

[hongsien]

At least for me it is a lost art: I keep taking pics but I am too lazy to print them, my negs are piling up from the past few years......so what am I? Just a (club)snapper?

Hong Sien

 

[Ansel]

At least for me it is a lost art: I keep taking pics but I am too lazy to print them, my negs are piling up from the past few years......so what am I? Just a (club)snapper?

Hong Sien

Hong Sien,

Get someone to print them for you lah! We know that not every great photographer make their own prints. We also know many great photographers never get to print their work until late in life. Or they are too busy printing, and got no time to shoot. If you enjoy shooting more than printing, there is nothing wrong with outsourcing the printing part to someone else. Of course you miss the "enjoyment" part of the printing process, but at least you get to see what you shot.

For me I have a love-hate feeling towards darkroom work. You crave for it when you don't do it for a long time. When you start to do it, you remember why you hated it. But when you see the print, you feel that the trouble is worth it. Maybe that's the kind of feeling a woman has when she goes thru a pregnancy.

For the past year, it has been digital for me. Maybe I should get back into the darkroom again.

I don't think traditional darkroom practice will be a lost art. It may be a rare art, as more people get onto the digital bandwagon, but it will never be lost.