Is wet printing worth doing

[munro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My local camera shop (we still have one thank God!) who sold me my recently acquired M6TTL which is introducing me to the film (and more serious photography) world told me last week that I could buy everything I need to start wet printing for about £200 which is pretty affordable

 

I must admit I was tempted but I see postings (even on this forum) from obviously experienced people who are giving up wet printing, selling their equipment, and starting to scan negatives so  that I wonder if wet printing is worth doing.

 

Are there any advantages in wet printing?. I can see disadvantages - setting up a dark room,messing about with chemicals and learning different techniques (which I don't have a clue about).

 

It worries me that so many people seem to be giving it up which begs the question is it worth doing at all.I am quite happy developing my films now so this is not a digital camera v film camera thing.

[Matlock]

I used to do all my own processing, including colour and B/W, both positve and negative. I spent hours in the darkroom and really enjoyed it. The delight of Cibachrome was quite something. However as I approach 70 and with the problem of dodgy knees, the ease of use of digital calls. I still use film for about 40% of my photos but commercial d&p and scanning has transformed my hobby. If you have the room then give home processing a try, you won't regret it. All I will say is get a good enlarger.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff S]

Suggest you look at lots of prints….silver and digital…and decide what you'd like to achieve.  There are loads of places to explore….museums, galleries, exhibits, etc.  

 

For me, it has been all or none (for b/w)…film and darkroom, or digital and inkjet.  Others do well with scanning, but when I did film, the silver print was the goal, and I wanted full darkroom control.  I can make a better digital print with an all-digital workflow, but that's just me.  There's no question that the all-digital workflow offers more convenience, flexibility and control than what I could achieve in the darkroom, so in that regard I don't miss it.  But a fine silver print is a beautiful thing.

 

Either way, printing requires a disciplined workflow and as much skill and judgment as taking a worthy photo…so there's really no shortcut to great results.   Having a great darkroom, or a great computer/printer set-up, doesn't ensure quality prints.  Only you can decide which process is 'worth it'…depending on what you want to achieve, and whether you can execute accordingly.

 

Jeff

Edited June 2, 2015 by Jeff S

[pico]

Jeff S expressed good points regarding digital printing. I cannot disagree.  My position, for better or worse, is that B&W wet printing is what I appreciate. It is what I grew up with. I'm Seventy now. I am also not very good with digital processing. So, there's the situation.

 

When I look at prints side-by-side, one wet, one ink-jet, the wet print still seems to have greater surface depth (not depth-of-field or depth-of-focus). I print 35mm small, usually floated on 5x7". For medium format 6x9, 6x12,  and even LF I float on 8x10".

 

I suggest you live through doubt by experiencing wet-printing. Give it a chance. Life is short. Are there rental darkrooms available to you?

 

If not, then I could suggest an inexpensive, but very good 35mm set-up. An early Leitz Focomat or Valoy is more than adequate - they are great condenser enlargers and affordable. I've never found a better enarger than those.  We can get into lenses, timers, and so-forth later.

[Guest]

One of the greatest pleasures in Photography is watching a piece of paper giving up its secrets so to speak, in a tray of developer.That is the good side but it can become a real hassle and to enjoy it stress free, a dedicated room is better so all that is required when finished is to leave the room. Modern printing technology and papers are so good I personally would not bother using the wet process again,but if you have never done it, Pico have given some sound advice. On a lighter note is the average age 70 throughout the forum or just this post.  . 

BrianP

Edited June 2, 2015 by Guest

[pop]

I think anyone who takes photography seriously ought to have done at least some wet printing. I have done so and I'm only 63.

[munro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Excellent advice once again.

 

I have found an organization fairly near which allows use of their dark rooms for a reasonable..

price

 

I think I will get in touch and arrange to spend a day there - If I enjoy it I will take Pico's advice and get myself some basic kit.

 

Thanks once again for all your help - great forum

[Mijo]

I think anyone who takes photography seriously ought to have done at least some wet printing. I have done so and I'm only 63.

 

I whole heartedly aggree.  I start with traditional printing back in high school, when digital wasn't even on the horizon yet, and a few years ago came back to it when I joined a community darkroom.  The community darkroom has an associated gallery attached to it and they constantly have exhbits from local pros.  It's pretty easy to guess which prints are digital and which ones are traditional, particularly when the prints are larger than 8x10.  I'm definately baised, but I prefer traditional prints to digital.

 

If you have the chance I would highly recommend traditional printing.  I attended a recent Leica film class, at the SF store, and the instructor mentioned that one option for a hybrid  workflow is to scan in the prints rather than the negative.   The idea is that you get the print exactly how you want it to look and then there's no need to digitally process the scanned image. I have haven't tried that myself but it is an interesting alternative to simply scanning in the negatives.

[tobey bilek]

Unless you have a place for a permanent or semi permanent space,  probably not.   

 

There is something magic about the hand creation of a real print just as in any art form.    It is not something you will learn in a month or a year to excellence.   Passible print is pretty easy.  

 

Color is a bit more demanding and the only way I ever found it fun was a Nova slot processor.   However chemicals are short lived and hard to find locally.

 

Just buy some chemicals and a scale and you are good to go.   Laundry aisle for borax.  The Chemistry Store for bulk sodium carbonate and sodium sulfate,  Photographers Formulary for everything else.    A beam balance for up to 500 grams.  A small digital scale for up to 5 grams, the kind drug dealers use.  

 

No cheap enlarging lenses work.  Condenser or diffusion work the same or very close if the film is developed properly.   Darkroom equipment needs to be top drawer just like your Leica Camera.

[Michael Hiles]

There is nothing to compare with a masterfully made silver print. Printing requires dedication to learn the skills. The first thing to learn is what a fine print looks like. Then read about printing technique from masters who know. Then practice in an orderly fashion. You will get better.

 

It is not easy, and it is not instant or even quick. If you don't want to strive to be ever better and achieve the best you can do - don't start.

 

But to answer the original question - is it worth doing? I certainly think so.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Michael Hiles

[pico]

Printing wet by projection with dodging and burning tends to 'show the hand' of the printer, unlike digital manipulation using highly precise masks, layers, blendings. In wet printing no two manipulated prints look quite alike. To me that is a good thing.

 

I visited an Ansel Adams exhibit last year and was surprised to see a see what was clearly a large burn that drifted over the sky, into a shadow. I thought that was something that would bother me, but I yield to the Master's vision. It was still a stunning image.

 

Not to be immodest, but I was considered a good B&W printer. Good enough to be offered a job at the best custom photo printing shop in Chicago. But that was then. Way back then!

Edited June 4, 2015 by pico

[pop]

I never got quite past the basics. However, since I had the free use of the darkroom of a nearby home for apprentices they asked me to do some basic courses for the residents. Each time it was the same: at the end of the workshop, no one would leave the darkroom as they all wanted to do this experiment and just only finish that one ....

[pico]

I never got quite past the basics. However, since I had the free use of the darkroom of a nearby home for apprentices they asked me to do some basic courses for the residents. Each time it was the same: at the end of the workshop, no one would leave the darkroom as they all wanted to do this experiment and just only finish that one ....

 

Over the last 23 years I have witnessed the changes to our university photography department as it transformed from film to digital plus a little bit of exposure to film use today.  As digital made in-roads, the students' wet prints became progressively worse, and their photography never improved. Perhaps the later is normal because they were inexperienced, but the prints?  Well, the students were straightforward, "Why should we spend more time in the darkroom than the digital guys spend on their computers?"

 

The wet printers took whatever came out after the first step-wedge test. The results were sickening. The digital mavens took the first print off the ink-jet. The results were better, but the quality was automatic, and not at all really good.

 

The photography department has been assimilated by the journalism department which necessarily strives to be relevant, so the remaining darkroom will likely be torn down, just as in real life work places. Just last week they were gifted a spendy photo-drone. One professor is frustrated by the new 360-degree multi-camera wearables. The virtue of 'being there' is still alive, but viewpoint is not. With autonomous 360-degree cameras, even the photographer will be unnecessary.

 

So be it.

[Jeff S]

 

The wet printers took whatever came out after the first step-wedge test. The results were sickening. The digital mavens took the first print off the ink-jet. The results were better, but the quality was automatic, and not at all really good.

 

 

 

The teachers deserve some of the blame here IMO.  In a sense, not much has changed between making a great (not just decent) silver print versus an inkjet one; it still takes a great eye and great judgment, regardless of the time taken, and some people never understand that.  A good teacher will help make that apparent by showing lots of actual prints, of varying standards, and the students who can appreciate the differences between a print that's pretty good versus one that 'sings' will be ahead of the game.  Making a great print is another challenge, film or digital.

 

Jeff

[250swb]

 

Are there any advantages in wet printing?. I can see disadvantages - setting up a dark room,messing about with chemicals and learning different techniques (which I don't have a clue about).

 

 

I did wet printing for thirty years before digital and inkjet printers were invented, and while I would say wet printing is worth having a go at, the ultimate decision comes from how sophisticated you can make your eye/vision in either discipline. It is easy for people to make an average silver print and feel it is the best in the world just because they did it in a darkroom. On the other hand it is easy for people to imagine that digital scanning does it all for them, and yet again they are happy with anything they can turn out because they only expect some sort of average result and not a premium result. Take either technique far enough and your results can be truly exceptional and in many cases indistinguishable, so it is about commitment and desire.

 

Certainly wet printing is a black art and many of the black arts are transferable to digital, such as dodging and burning and what wet printers may define as perception, working with contrast, tone/tint and artistry, none of which come automatically out of a software package but can be learned. 

 

So have a go at wet printing if you have the opportunity, but don't get beaten up by doing it, if you plan to go the whole journey with digital scanning and printing you can do the same job, which after all is to express yourself,  and not to be caught up in oneupmanship.

 

Steve

Edited June 6, 2015 by 250swb

[honcho]

 

I think I will get in touch and arrange to spend a day there - If I enjoy it I will take Pico's advice and get myself some basic kit.

 

Have a few sessions in the darkroom with a competent printer before buying stuff, if you can.  Get your hands dirty and persevere, you'll soon know if this is the route you really want to take. One thing you can be sure of is that you will rapidly learn about the image and your photography skills will also improve. I disagree with the opinion of some here that a silver print will always be better than a digital or inkjet print.  To me, that argument is as simplistic and outdated as most other digital vs traditional dogma, don't be sidetracked by it!

 

As with any creative process success always depends on individual skills and the best digital prints I have seen have invariably been made by people who have previously served their time in the darkroom.  Enjoy the journey, whichever route you decide to take.

[tobey bilek]

Ink prints to me look like reproduction in a book.   A real silver , mono chrome or color "C", has depth  and luminosity.      It can be achieved with a laser printer from digital files,  You probably can not afford the machine or the chemicals to stock it.   

 

I take my files to a lab that uses a laser printer.     The biggest secret is to use a moderate contrast curve, a good black point and highlight at 250 or less.  Use saturation, clarity to taste.  The look like my old darkroom prints with much less effort and time.

 

To see the difference,  take a file to Walgreens or Osco too and compare.

 

The last option is darkroom.   Beautiful if you know what you are doing and there is a learning curve same as digital.   Making a print is easy.  Knowing what is wrong with it and how to fix it requires experience.  Same experience as required to give a commercial lab a "good" file.

[Jager]

The teachers deserve some of the blame here IMO.  In a sense, not much has changed between making a great (not just decent) silver print versus an inkjet one; it still takes a great eye and great judgment, regardless of the time taken, and some people never understand that.  A good teacher will help make that apparent by showing lots of actual prints, of varying standards, and the students who can appreciate the differences between a print that's pretty good versus one that 'sings' will be ahead of the game.  Making a great print is another challenge, film or digital.

 

Jeff

 

Couldn't agree more.  Back when wet printing was mainstream, there were many competent, pretty good printers.  There were, alas, never many who deserved the appellation 'master printer.'  

 

Same thing in the digital realm.  A lot of guys are pretty good.  Very few are truly outstanding.

 

It's always been hard.  And a lot of famous, wonderful photographers were hacks as printers.

 

In either realm there is a visual literacy, which then must be married to very nuanced technique, that is required to become a master printer.  

 

Which is to say... by all means give wet printing a try.  Just don't have the expectation that the process, in and of itself, will raise your game.

[Bodie]

Not any more. Did it for forty years and enjoyed it. Now that water is so scarce here in California I don't want to waste water and pay a fine. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LarsAC]

Nothing beats a print which is your own personal work from seeing to drying, IMHO.

 

Lars