Printer vs Darkroom (Black & white)

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm sure there are folks here who have extensive darkroom experience processing printing B&W prints.  I have plenty of that myself BUT I left the Leica camera/film/darkroom world around 2004, switching primarily to digital (Nikon) and I have NO experience with current photo-quality printers. I tried out the first few generations of "photo quality" printers and they pretty much sucked compared to darkroom prints.  Now I'm back to Leica (M10 and re-buying the same focal length Leica lenses I sold - well, except for the 50mm Noct!)  and I'm interested in black and white. Are there printers/papers around now that film- experienced folks here would say have comparable tonal range to good darkroom B&W prints?

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Mikep996

[Michael Hiles]

You should look into Ilford Lab Direct. They print from digital files onto Silver-Gelatin paper. they can make quite big prints. You manipulate/adjust your image using your favourite software and send it along. My experience is that the prints are excellent, and the price is reasonable (not a bargain, just reasonable). There is a California operation/branch - my experience is with the UK operation, but would expect the same quality from both sources.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Michael Hiles

[Advertisement]

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

[tom.w.bn]

I print my digital files and scanned film files with an older Canon Pro 9500 on paper from Fotospeed (Lustre 275 and Pearl 290). On our film photo meeting, prints and paper get a big thumbs up from the guys who print in their own darkroom. Can't be so bad. 80% comes from the paper, not the printer.

I'm sure if I started printing in a darkroom now,  I needed 2-3 years to achieve the level of quality I get with the digital prints.

My next little project (after covid 19) is to experiment with printing on digital contact film and make a contact print from that.... need access to the lab from one of my friends for that.

[Jeff S]

Already lots of discussion regarding print machines in the Digital Post Processing section, where mods will likely move this thread.  Many people here, including me, have gone from darkroom to inkjet.  Epson and Canon printer’s are now the usual suspects.  I use an Epson P800, which is soon to be superseded by the P900. Making a superb print, darkroom or digital, has more to do with the user than the gear, especially now that print machines are very capable, with improved ink sets, and a wide choice of fine papers.  

Jeff

[dkmoore]

Epsons Legacy Platine is very nice and while it doesn’t look exactly like silver, it’s very good and provides very good tonal range. 

Hahnemuhle Bartrya Paper is also excellent. 
 

Apparently the new P900 that Jeff referenced above has a new mode in which is sprays a coating over the image to make it appear more dark room print like. I’m hopeful this is more than a gimmick. 

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

Apparently the new P900 that Jeff referenced above has a new mode in which is sprays a coating over the image to make it appear more dark room print like. I’m hopeful this is more than a gimmick. 

Chroma optimizers for glossy papers (to prevent bronzing and gloss differential) are not new, and appear on some Canon models, Jon Cone’s (Piezography) products, etc.  But this apparently is different, without need for a separate channel or pass, so we’ll see. Other changes also warrant attention.

Meanwhile, the P800 can produce superb prints. I prefer Canson papers (Infinity Baryta Photographique especially), but there are loads of other choices.  I don’t compare silver vs inkjet prints, and mat/frame them both; each can be wonderful... or mediocre... same as    pictures to start.

Jeff

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I share Jeff's preference for Canson Baryta. I use it on an Epson XP15000. I would say that 90% of the print quality does not depend on the hardware, nor the software, but is determined by the bioware.

[Jeff S]

58 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Making a superb print, darkroom or digital, has more to do with the user than the gear....

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I would say that 90% of the print quality does not depend on the hardware, nor the software, but is determined by the bioware.

 

Bingo.

Jeff

[jaapv]

3 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Bingo.

Jeff

Snap.

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Snap.

I might, however, borrow your nice phrasing.  I was getting tired of repeating that “the most important tools reside between the ears.”  True, though, for shooting and printing. 

Jeff

[otto.f]

With my Epson P800 I use Canson after I discovered that it is much sharper than Hahnemüle. I use Platine for B&W which is a bit off-white,  but in the end I like  Baryta Photographique better and it is well suited for both B&W and color. I find it the best alternative for wet prints, which are still unsurpassed. When I compare my best baryta prints from the pre-digital era with my best digital prints, I see more depth and they never get boring. I tend to change digital prints more often. So the best advice is to get back to your wet darkroom and use Bergger Prestige CB and trade in your M10 for an M7 with Delta 100 or Cinestill 200 😊 and you will have money left for a Heiland Splitgrade.

Edited May 25, 2020 by otto.f

[djmay]

12 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

 Are there printers/papers around now that film- experienced folks here would say have comparable tonal range to good darkroom B&W prints?

 

 

 

I have not seen that anyone answered your question.

With respect to comparable tonal range, the answer is “yes.” There are digital printing digital media that are similar to darkroom fiber-based paper. Personal preference will drive your decision, however, to help you narrow the choices I will give you my preferences.

 I use a service bureau for digital printing and do my own darkroom printing. For digital printing my two choices of paper are Ilford photographic paper and Hahnemühle Photo Rag inkjet paper. I use the Ilford for large prints mounted behind acrylic and Hahnemühle for unmounted prints. 

Edited May 25, 2020 by djmay

[Mikep996]

Thanks for the responses.  I realize that the skill of the "operator" is of primary importance but that's a different issue.

 I'm comfortable making prints in a darkroom - started doing at age 15 though I haven't done it since around '05.  I just wanted to know if a current photo printer/papers can equal the tonal range capability of wet printing/papers.  If it is generally felt that they can, or are at least pretty close, I'd purchase one.  It would be less expensive than buying an M6 or M7 (both of which I had/sold years ago) and purchasing all the darkroom gear I also sold years ago!   OTOH, I've looked at the P800 Epson info and half-choked on the replacement cost of ink!  

[Gerbs]

I am taking the plunge into Piezography, inks on order. It is worth looking into in my opinion, obviously, LOL. I was going to use one of the quality services when I came across https://piezography.com/piezography/

The quality of archival processes these days IS THERE, as in probably exceeding darkroom quality. It's one reason I also plunged for the M10 Monochrom.

[otto.f]

2 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

OTOH, I've looked at the P800 Epson info and half-choked on the replacement cost of ink!  

Although I do a long time with the inks, much longer than with the 3800 and the ink stays fluid and isn’t clotting as was the case with the 3800

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

Thanks for the responses.  I realize that the skill of the "operator" is of primary importance but that's a different issue.

 I'm comfortable making prints in a darkroom - started doing at age 15 though I haven't done it since around '05.  I just wanted to know if a current photo printer/papers can equal the tonal range capability of wet printing/papers.  If it is generally felt that they can, or are at least pretty close, I'd purchase one.  It would be less expensive than buying an M6 or M7 (both of which I had/sold years ago) and purchasing all the darkroom gear I also sold years ago!   OTOH, I've looked at the P800 Epson info and half-choked on the replacement cost of ink!  

Weston did pretty well on the tonality front using a bare light bulb.  A P800 won't magically create tones or result in superior prints.  But, yes, modern print machines and paper options should not be an obstacle to create superb prints, with wonderful tonality.  But, as I noted, silver prints are not inkjet prints, although each can be terrific or mediocre.

With 80ml cartridges, the P800 is potentially more economical for inks than various alternatives.  The P900 will have 50ml cartridges, but we don't yet know the price point. I spend less on inks than I spent years ago on various film and darkroom supplies, and these costs pale in comparison to current prices for Leica gear, etc.  The good news is that print machines are bargains, regularly subject to rebates and discounts, as inks are where the margins are (similar to the razor/ razor blade business model).

If the world ever opens up again, I suggest that you get out and look at some inkjet prints....at shops, shows, galleries, fairs, museums, etc....and at least see what some others are producing.

Jeff

[Mikep996]

Thanks guys - good stuff!  

 

[adan]

As to the printers: modern "photo" inks are vastly improved since 2004. More inks (e.g. light cyan as well as cyan, "vivid" magenta/light magenta, and two gray inks in addition to black, rather the old simple CMYK quartet) for finer tonal distinctions and less-obvious dots. Epson et al stole that idea from Cone's Peizography and other specialty ink makers.

Today's pigment inks have higher saturation and Dmax ("blackness") and less metamerism than the first such pigment-ink printers (Epson r2000?) - and somewhat less "gloss differential" (where the ink on the surface clearly "shines" more than the white paper, viewed at glancing angles). Although still produce some of the latter.

B&W prints are also much more neutral-gray than a decade ago, again because of the multiple gray inks (instead of trying to balance CMY color inks to a perfect gray).

Only downside to inkjet is its tendency to occasionally "burp" random blobs of ink - usually a sign it needs professional service and cleaning, above and beyond the regular head-cleaning the machine can do itself. Not quite as simple as just washing darkroom trays....

As to papers: Much more variety of "gelatin-paper-like" finishes today. Fiber-gloss baryta inkjet papers try to replicate the "waxed eggshell" or "polished (not patent-) leather" surface and weight of air-dried, double-weight, fiber F-surface papers of old. At least the paper makers are targeting the right look, even if their success is mixed.

My all-time favorite inkjet photo paper only lasted a few years. Harman (i.e. Ilford UK) Photo Fiber Gloss FB Al(lumina). It was made on Ilford's regular silver-gelatin coating machines, and I swear it had an overcoating that let the ink penetrate to avoid "gloss differential" and give the prints the same "depth" as gelatin. Marketed first by Ilford UK (not to confused with Ilford Switzerland) and then by Hahnemühle.

Now I use Epson Exhibition Fiber Gloss. A bit more "Polycontrast" than "Ilford Multigrade Galerie" in look, but well within the range of looks that air-dried gloss gelatin papers produce(d) historically. And definitely more sophisticated than the RC mirror-gloss or pebble/luster papers - although I also use those, for work-prints or other purposes. Plus, Exhibition Fiber has no darn manufacturers' watermarks all over the back .

It should also be noted that "essentially-dry" inkjet-printing avoids the wrinkles, curls, dog-eared corners, edge-fretting and occasional stains from tossing paper around in trays of chemicals or water for 15-60 minutes before drying it.

[GRBrown]

2 hours ago, adan said:

Plus, Exhibition Fiber has no darn manufacturers' watermarks all over the back .

I started using Red River papers because the backs are plain and the papers cost less than the equivalent from Epson. To me,  the papers' quality is as good or better than those from Epson. The Red River web pages have listings of its papers and other manufacturers' equivalents. I have no connection with Red River, just a satisfied customer.

redriverpaper.com

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

The Canson papers I use have no watermarks on back, and I prefer their Infinity Baryta Photographique to Epson's Exhibition for a greater variety of work, although I do use the latter occasionally.

Jeff