"Wet" Printing vs. "Digital" Printing

[leicavirgin2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To All Who Might Read This Thread-

 

I have a Digital Epson 4880Pro printer & it is gigantic... the results with B&W neg scans from my purist leica 35mm bodies & leitz/leica lenses are superb especially with Velvet Fine Art Photo Paper. However, about a year ago I picked up a Leitz/Leica V35-AF with a 40mm f2.8 Leitz/Leica Focotar Lens... I also have a 50mm Rodenstock f2.8 APO lens for it as well. I invested in this Enlarger set-up to remain "pure" to the Leica Image i.e., consistency from the taking optic to the "wet" printed image. Another Photographer, (forget their name), said it would be superior to my "DRY" Digital Printing. The reason, he explained, was the "layers" of the paper emulsion & would be more full, round i.e., "three dimensional", because of the light passing through the layers of the emulsion onto the photo paper, (ilford). Also,when I use Nikkor Glass with my F's bodies, I have a Nikkor 50mm f2.8 Enlarging Lens to keep that integrity, or that is my hope?

 

The problem is that I HAVE NOT used the Enlarger because of personal issues since I have had it... i.e., finding a proper room to do "wet" printing etc., the lot.

 

I have read that most pros, like Jay Maisel, think that digital printing is superior to the old method of "WET" printing with more consistent results & he even does them him-self; when he never did printing before digital came along... He did DYE TRANSFER PRINTS... He states that results from his Epson 9000 series blows even those away!

 

Also, Mr. Maisel has switched to 100% Digital for his Image Capture... He uses a Nikon D3x with a Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 ED/IS/IF Lens & he says it blows all his film images out of the water, both B&W, & Colour... & to make it even more complicated he was stated as saying that he used to have 16 F type bodies and the reason is they kept breaking down so he relied on back-ups... Now, he just has 2 Nikon D3x bodies the quality, according to him, has become much, much better.

 

I have many Leica M's from the M3, M2, M4, & M6 all the way up to the MP

all with Leitz/Leica Glass; as well as many, many Nikon Reflex Film Bodies from the First Nikon F, to a F2, F3-HP, FM3a, N90s & Nikon F100 all complemented with Japanese Nikkor Glass old & new.

 

In addition, I have not done any "WET" printing for over 25 years. Last time was in High School here in the states.

 

So, the question is... will I notice a difference using the Leitz/Leica V35AF with the Leitz 40mm F2.8 Focotar, or The Rodenstock 50mm F2.8 APO as compared to my Epson 4880-Pro with basic PS like dodging & burning, etc.?

 

I have also heard the flip-side of the debate... that no digital print can compare to a properly printed FIBER BASED B&W print from an orginal B&W negative be it 35mm, 6x6, or even 4x5.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

LV2

[adan]

Remember that Jay is primarily a COLOR photographer - and there is just a whole different dynamic to printing color "wet" (Slides or negs) - filter color corrections, completely dark darkroom, no control of the image via changes in developer or time, no fiber papers, etc. Fiber color papers disappeared about 1975 with the advent of RC.

 

Dye transfer being more like inkjet printing in that one is applying the dyes to the paper (instead of them being "in" the paper from the factory), and a lot of the work is done in the light once the separation negs are made - although still a complex process.

 

A high-end inkjet color print on fiber baryta paper looks more like a dye transfer print than does any "wet" RC-paper color print - IMHO. "Wet" or "dry", color prints on luster or high-gloss RC paper look about the same - a bit plasticky (but then, that is how all color prints except DT have looked since 1975).

 

Silver prints have a different dynamic, and there is something to the idea of there being more depth to silver fiber prints where the image is "in" the emulsion rather than a surface coating of ink. Depends on the paper - I found Harman Fiber Gloss FB for inkjets to have an extra "depth" to it due to an extra overcoating of gelatin (Harman being the silver-imaging arm of the old Ilford).

 

I would say that "no digital print can compare...to FIBER..." is a gross exaggeration. Some can, and some can't.

 

All that being said, yes, you should see a difference between a wet silver print and a fiber inkjet. That doesn't mean "better" one way or the other, necessarily. Your first silver prints will likely look worse until you get your darkroom skills refreshed - and they'll curl

 

I'd try all your three lenses and use the "best" one for all your printing - there is no magic synergy to using a Nikkor for Nikon shots and the Focotar for Leica shots. Whatever your camera lens did for the image is permanently fixed in the negative - the job of the enlarging lens is to reproduce the negative as faithfully as possible. It's been 35 years since I used a Focotar - I do remember thinking it had a crisper, contrastier look and slightly better field flatness than the EL-Nikkors I used otherwise - regardless of what lens or camera took the shot originally.

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

After a lifetime of silver photography and printing, and a conversion to digital in my old age, I must say that the main difference is not in the printing, but that between a negative, and a digital file.

 

Because of the smooth toe and shoulder transitions of the neg's characteristic curve, you can entice a remarkable range of subject contrast onto your paper. With digital, the curve is straight and without any transitions. It stops abruptly at both ends. This, more than the inks and the papers, gives a digital print a "mechanical" character: OK, this is all there is to it!

 

The old fuddy-duddy with hypo on his fingers

[luigi bertolotti]

I agree with Lars... not a question of comparing the PRINTS in themselves... there will be always different views about... there will be new kinds of inkjet papers in the future... new printers, new inks... a final word shall be impossible to state; the real problem is NEG VS. FILE : starting from a (let's say) "perfect negative" you have a lot of choices and control in the paper processing phase... with digital you'll never have the "perfect negative"... you have, paradoxically, "too much control" on the file you are going to print , to be able to say that the final result on paper is "better" or "worse" than in wet print.

 

A final consideration about the question of "three dimensional" aspect of wet papers... I think is a subtle but real factor (do you remember the "grignotage" technique, about 3D aspect ? ); I think that, someday, someone in the digital printer industry could provide something in that direction... years ago I remember (and used, not in photo environment) the wax printers from Tektronix... they gave a nice 3D effect on printed CAD-rendered images (because there were physical "layers" supurpositioned on the paper support)... I haven't followed what has happened to that technology (maybe is disappeared ?) but I thought that some development in that direction could have been of interest in the photographic world.

[elgenper]

...I have a Digital Epson 4880Pro printer & it is gigantic... the results with B&W neg scans from my purist leica 35mm bodies & leitz/leica lenses are superb especially with Velvet Fine Art Photo Paper. However, about a year ago I picked up a Leitz/Leica V35-AF with a 40mm f2.8 Leitz/Leica Focotar Lens...

 

The reason, he explained, was the "layers" of the paper emulsion & would be more full, round i.e., "three dimensional", because of the light passing through the layers of the emulsion onto the photo paper, (ilford).......

 

In addition, I have not done any "WET" printing for over 25 years. Last time was in High School here in the states.

 

So, the question is... will I notice a difference using the Leitz/Leica V35AF with the Leitz 40mm F2.8 Focotar, or The Rodenstock 50mm F2.8 APO as compared to my Epson 4880-Pro with basic PS like dodging & burning, etc.?

 

I have also heard the flip-side of the debate... that no digital print can compare to a properly printed FIBER BASED B&W print from an orginal B&W negative be it 35mm, 6x6, or even 4x5.

....

 

OK, there is a grain of truth in the ´three dimensionality´ argument you heard: in a silver gelatin paper, the image-forming grains are suspended in a transparent gelatin layer of some thickness, while an inkjet paper (even the luxury ones) are made so that the pigments stay on the very surface. In direct comparison, one can certainly see the difference, but if that´s the only thing in an image that makes it ´stand out´, it´s probably not much of an image on any kind of paper...

 

I´d say, for every master printer in one medium, one could find an even better one using the other. None of the media is inherently superior when looking at the best possible results from a master´s hands.

 

Now, looking at YOUR situation, as you describe it, I´d say leave the wet darkroom out. You say you haven´t worked with it for 25 years, and there is a very long and steep learning curve in making really good prints the old way. I O W, if you start now, you´ll go through years of slowly going from lousy to inconsistent to decent to good prints, while you say you already get superb results from your digital printing.

 

I did consider myself half-decent (far from mastery) when wet printing; a few prints were superb, but too many were crap. I stopped almost ten years ago, relying entirely on digital, and I wouldn´t dream of returning to the wet darkroom; it would be a big waste of time and materials. And, I´m a far better printer now than I ever was when wet printing.

Edited December 22, 2010 by elgenper

[pico]

Speaking of Black & White here. I do not do color, and defer to the experts for that.

 

Unless one is looking for special effects such as a soft image, the role of an enlarging lens is to deliver as much of the negative's information as possible to the paper.

 

IMO, a Leica enlarging lens has no special quality that compliments the Leica camera lens. Once upon a time it was considered virtuous to use the same lens for printing that one used to make the exposure. I did that and found the outcome to be unacceptable. Enlarging lenses are supposed to be optimized for certain degrees of enlargement. They are not general purpose lenses

 

Just get the best enlarging lens you can afford. I've found variations in quality from the same lens brand and type so that one of my best lenses is a relatively inexpensive one, and one of my worst is an expensive lens.

 

Regarding the '3D' effect, I think the word luminance describes it best. All papers are not really white. Some reflect more blue, and with those and a cold image tonality one can get very interesting luminance in shadow adjancies. It is most evident when viewing such under tungsten light.

[edmond_terakopian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I too would say that there is a difference, but not a huge one, and one way isn't better but just different.

For around ten years I printed all my work in a B/W darkroom. I had a Schneider Componon S 2.8 50mm lens and this made not only my Leica images sing, but also anything shot on Canon or Nikon SLRs (which I used when I needed long lenses).

 

During the years I even picked up two awards from Kodak for my hand printing.

 

Until very recently, in fact earlier this year, I found with a digital workflow I just couldn't match the feel and subtlety I could create in the darkroom. I'd tried Canon and Epson desktop A3 printers and although some were ok, nothing really came close.

 

I was then asked by Canon to evaluate their new iPF6300 which absolutely amazed me. This was the first time in around a decade when my prints started to sing again. It was the first time I could make prints that had all the subtlety I missed in the darkroom. Using it with Hahnemuhler Photo Rag, Photo Rag Baryta and Ilford's Gold Fibre Silk, I can make exhibition / collector's quality prints that can match all I could do in the darkroom.

 

I'd say essentials are a calibrated display, using accurately created ICC and media profiles and spot on image processing (I personally use Aperture and Nik Software's Viveza 2 and Silver Efex Pro plugins).

 

When using paper for which there isn't a profile for your printer, I'd highly recommend X-Rite's ColorMunki Photo - this helped me profile a whole range of papers easily and accurately.

 

Lastly and naturally one huge point in favour of dry printing; no nasty chemicals, chemical stains (every single pair of trousers I had had a chemical stain on them from where I was leaning on the darkroom sink looking at prints as they developed!) or smells to deal with!

 

Have fun,

 

Edmond

[edmond_terakopian]

Just to add, I just posted my review of the Canon iPF 6300 which I wrote for the British Journal of Photography a few months ago:

 

Canon iPF6300 | Photo This & That

 

Regards,

 

Edmond

[Rick]

Edmond, gushing review. You mentioned the solarization effect. I have an HP printer (printer is the HPZ3200-44) that lays down a clear coat over the final print (when selected) and it is very effective at eliminating the bronzing you are seeing. And, it adds a sort of 3-D effect to the print which I like very much. Does the Canon have the ability to do this?

 

Also, I find that the HP does such a good job with the ICC/profiling that, profiling papers with a dedicated spectrometer like the X-Rite is completely unnecessary. No need for downloading ICC profiles for unknown or known papers. The HP does better on its own without them.

[edmond_terakopian]

Edmond, gushing review. You mentioned the solarization effect. I have an HP printer (printer is the HPZ3200-44) that lays down a clear coat over the final print (when selected) and it is very effective at eliminating the bronzing you are seeing. And, it adds a sort of 3-D effect to the print which I like very much. Does the Canon have the ability to do this?

 

Also, I find that the HP does such a good job with the ICC/profiling that, profiling papers with a dedicated spectrometer like the X-Rite is completely unnecessary. No need for downloading ICC profiles for unknown or known papers. The HP does better on its own without them.

 

The bronzing was only there on one or two papers and I tested a large number! The clear coat sounds interesting and I'll try and look out for it. It's not available on the iPF 6300. Would that not change the feel if used on a fibre paper?

The 6300 does have a built in calibrator, but it's used for setting up print heads. It would be handy to have one built in but having talked to Canon and X-Rite, a built in solution is apparently not as capable. One of the simple issues giving the paper time to dry. There were also technical issues which were beyond me!!

[Knomad]

Last spring I had an interesting opportunity to compare darkroom and digital prints. I had four prints hanging side by side in a Chicago gallery, two of them shot with an M8 and printed on an Epson 3880 at 17x22 inches; one shot with an M6 and one on medium format film, and those two printed at 16x20 in the darkroom.

 

There were lots of variables of course, and that needs to be taken into account in any comparison. But having had plenty of time to stare at them while framing and then during parts of two lengthy opening receptions while answering questions for viewers, my conclusion is that there was not really any better or worse, just different.

 

The digital images were crisp and smooth. The 35mm film image, shot on Tri-X, had visible but pleasing grain. The medium format film image had more subtle tonal gradation. But all were good enough to make the cut with a very finicky gallery curator who knows what she is looking at.

 

Although I've been printing in the darkroom since 1971 and learned from some very talented people, I find that I'm not doing it much anymore, even though I've got a decent sized permanent darkroom in the garage. Increasingly, even my film work is scanned and then printed digitally. Certainly it's more consistent that way. That's perhaps the greatest difference, no two prints from the darkroom are quite exactly the same. That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your goals and your preferences.

 

I'm not seeing tremendous differences between different enlarger lenses as long as they're quality lenses. In the example above, I used a Rodenstock for medium format and a Nikkor for 35mm. Differences in film type, processing, camera lens, and paper type seem to be more pronounced than whatever difference the enlarger lens made or at least seem to swamp out the difference and make it hard to separate out.

[Rick]

Edmond, I understand now that you only saw it on some papers, that's good to hear. The coating HP uses is only helpful on coated papers.

 

The z3200 calibrates in one stage and then in a second step produces an ICC profile for the specific paper loaded in the printer using the internal X-Rite colorimeter. It prints out the color pattern and then rolls the paper out to dry. After a specific time it pulls the paper back in and performs the color reading with the internal X-Rite. You can also specify how much time you want the patches to dry. On some papers I have seen quite a bit of change during drying. You notice this easily when you have printed the perfect print and the duplicate looks nothing like it when it is compared with the original that has sat and dried. I suspect you already know all of this.

 

Another reason Canon may not be able to use an internal X-Rite is because in 2006 they licensed and partnered with HP to use their colorimeters in the z-series HP printers. I'm not sure, but I seem to have a vague memory of HP buying X-Rite, not sure.

 

All of these printers all are fantastic and I would not go back to darkroom printing especially with color. I would consider some B&W printing if I had the room for a darkroom and owned a Leica MP like Bill. That could be fun purely for the purpose of creating a print in a medium that was totally hand made and film based from beginning to end. I think I could enjoy that again, especially if, I had a friend or two that wanted to go into it. Long hours in the darkroom by myself got old a long time ago. But, maybe in a coop set-up, with some good friends, and scotch nice bar adjoining the darkroom... could be fun. But, the bottom line for me is, life is too short and I've been there and done that and I want to move on to something else (digital).

Edited December 24, 2010 by RickLeica

[pico]

Last spring I had an interesting opportunity to compare darkroom and digital prints. I had four prints hanging side by side in a Chicago gallery.

 

May we see the photos, please?

[edmond_terakopian]

Hi Rick,

 

That's a very cool system - I'm thinking maybe the chaps I spoke to weren't familiar with all the facts about how your HP calibrates, including drying time! Very neat.

 

X-Rite bout out Gretag MacBeth and as far as I know, are their own company. They are in fact Canon's official partner in colour calibration, so it seems that the HP contract maybe wasn't exclusive? No idea - maybe it was for built in calibration?!

Regardless, with the iPF6300 I just need to profile the media once and then make up an ICC and it's filed away. It would be neater on an internal system but it's not that much of a hassle!

 

At the end of the day, as long as these machines make the prints we want, in the way we want them, that's all that counts :-)

 

I remember the darkroom days well! I'd lock myself into the newspaper's darkroom around 8 or 9pm and emerge at 3am the next day when working on competition or exhibition prints! Sometimes leaving behind a stack of almosts and one perfect Ilford Galerie 16x12 :-) Radio blaring and terrible coffee in hand! Like you, been there and it was fun. Time to move on indeed :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Edmond