Traditional versus digital darkroom

[cameron665]

I used to have a darkroom for B&W processing some years ago but have since sold my gear. Reading posts about scanned negatives has got me curious about how prints from scanned negatives compare with those done by traditional methods. I'm getting back into photography after a few years break and am not sure which way to jump. Certainly, the digital approach would appear to be more convenient, less chemicals etc but are the end results comparable?

[Xia_Ke]

Hmmm, I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this as well. I never ended up printing any of my neg scans digitally as I had just wanted to wait until I could print them myself. I will say that my digital B&W shots, that I had printed by Adorama when they used to do B&W specific printing on Ilford paper, don't compare (that's not to say they're bad but, they don't have the same "feel" to them). Not really a fair comparison though. Hard to say how much was from the camera, the printer, the paper, etc. Do you have a place near you that specializes in digital B&W printing? I think the only major online place in the US that does it is MPIX.

[cameron665]

I do have a lab nearby which charges an extra $18 or so above standard cost for B&W (120 roll). It sounds like they send out the B&W. Standard C-41 processing is about $16 including prints. I haven't really looked too far into other labs at this stage.

[Xia_Ke]

If you are going to do traditional B&W film, I would definitely just develop your own. From the sounds of it you would save quite a bit, plus then you will have full control over your negatives. You only need a couple chemicals for that and any kitchen or bathroom sink/tub would work fine. Then you could always scan and send out for your final prints.

[AgingEyes]

I used to have a darkroom for B&W processing some years ago but have since sold my gear. Reading posts about scanned negatives has got me curious about how prints from scanned negatives compare with those done by traditional methods. I'm getting back into photography after a few years break break and am not sure which way to jump. Certainly, the digital approach would appear to be more convenient, less chemicals etc but are the end results comparable?

A UK magazine called Black & White Photography has a section called "Printing Technique". It shows two prints from the same negative but printed differently: one in the darkroom and the other one using Photoshop and computer printer. From the one I see, the one using computer and printer easily show more details in the final photo. The guy who uses the darkroom has to spend a lot of time in it just trying to get some details in his print, and it could all be in vain. So, do they look the same? No. But I think if the computer guy wants to have its print looks like the one from the darkroom, it can be done with ease.

Have to remind you though I'm just basing my observation on the photos printed in the magazine.

[AgingEyes]

If you are going to do traditional B&W film, I would definitely just develop your own. From the sounds of it you would save quite a bit, plus then you will have full control over your negatives. You only need a couple chemicals for that and any kitchen or bathroom sink/tub would work fine. Then you could always scan and send out for your final prints.

When I developed my own films, I didn't even need to use any kitchen sink or tub

[Xia_Ke]

When I developed my own films, I didn't even need to use any kitchen sink or tub

I don't reuse my developer so I need someplace to dump the used developer.

[AgingEyes]

I don't reuse my developer so I need someplace to dump the used developer.

Got it.

I didn't re-use my developer either

I think it's a good idea to develop your own films and let the lab scans them.

[cameron665]

Any opinions on the C41 B&W films? I have been a bit disappointed with the results. The prints just seem a bit flat to me - but that could be the fault of the photographer.
Any recommendations for a scanner for 120 negatives?

[Xia_Ke]

Well, we will soon know the answer to your question. I happened to have a scan of this negative already saved on my hard drive. It's 120 scanned at 2400 dpi. I resized it 2400x3000 which is 300dpi for 8x10 and saved as a jpeg which worked out to almost a 5mb file. I ordered 1 8x10 of their "True Digital B&W Paper". I have a couple versions already printed on RC paper and will print up a copy on fiber paper next session. I'll let you know how they compare

Any opinions on the C41 B&W films? I have been a bit disappointed with the results. The prints just seem a bit flat to me - but that could be the fault of the photographer.
Any recommendations for a scanner for 120 negatives?

Never used C-41 myself. Greg McCary has had some nice results with it though. Here's his B&W gallery on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2170273...7603451171178/

How big are you looking to print your shots? While the flatbeds may not be quite as sharp as a drum scan, if you're only printing 8x10 and 11x14's, I think you would be hard pressed to tell the difference in the final print. Most of the more "serious" shooters I've talked to use the Epson V750 or they have them drum scanned.

[Xia_Ke]

Got it.

I didn't re-use my developer either

I think it's a good idea to develop your own films and let the lab scans them.

I usually end up loading my reels in a changing bag in the livingroom while watching tv. I do all my developing in the bathroom primarily just to get away from the cats but, also if I happen to spill something than it's no big deal in the bathroom and easily cleaned up. I would be interested to hear about your process and experiences when you did film and also your reasons for getting away from it

Sorry to hijack your thread

[Greg McCary]

Thanks Aaron. For C-41 I use Kodak BW400CN. It's a contrasty film I wouldn't really want to use for portrait work. But for what I do it suits me well. If I were to do people I would go for Ilford XP2 400.

[AgingEyes]

I would be interested to hear about your process and experiences when you did film and also your reasons for getting away from it

I don't think my process was much different than yours, only that I didn't limit myself to the kitchen or a bathroom. I hung my films in the bathroom though as it usually is more humid than the other places in the house and thus the dust doesn't fly around much in there. As far as I remember, I think the most important thing is the control of the temperature of the chemicals. I think I still have the gear packed somewhere.

As for why I stopped doing it, I got some changes in my life that made photography a very luxury pastime to me during that period. Before I knew it, it was ten years without me picking up a camera shooting any photos. By then, everything has become digital. Actually, what started me interested in getting a digital camera a year or so ago was when I took my car to the shop for repair, the insurance adjuster was using a digicam taking close up pics of part of my car. And I thought to myself: "Ummm...that looks like a useful tool I can use." And the rest is history.

[Xia_Ke]

...I think I still have the gear packed somewhere...

Now you're screwed...LOL I'm just going to have to harp on you until you dig it all back out

[AgingEyes]

Now you're screwed...LOL I'm just going to have to harp on you until you dig it all back out

You can try

And I think I've told you I still have some good films in the fridge, did I? Ektar 25, Pan-x 32. ISO 25 and 32!! Anybody has used them before?

[Xia_Ke]

...Ektar 25, Pan-x 32. ISO 25 and 32!! Anybody has used them before?

Nope but... ahhhh... if you don't want to use them, then... ahhh...

[danic]

Any opinions on the C41 B&W films?

I use Kodak BW400CN, which I'm told is a bit more forgiving than Ilford XP2. They are both C-41 processed. Have a look in my gallery for some shots. Please bear in mind I'm not that good either, still learning a lot about shooting B&W. Its a lot harder than colour :mad2:

[drg]

There have been two types of the C-41 B&W films. One for a color 'channel' meaning printed on RA type or other color papers, and one for printing on traditional B&W media. Usually they do not enlarge as well as traditional B&W film without extraordinary care. The 'blobs' of dye are certainly not the same as silver halide clumps.

A lot of photographers just used a 400 speed color C-41/CN-16 type of film and then play with it (often on the computer) to get a mono image.

I did an entry not too long ago in this forum called " Consider C-41 " and it contains a link to some images in my gallery as well.

Microtek has a new series/line of scanners that from initial testing look like real winners. They are flatbeds, but have drawers for scanning film of all sizes up to at 4x5 inch. Glassless scanning is available which means the scanner reads right from the film and not through glass as is the problem with many flatbeds which eliminates many optical problems like moire' and ring artifacts.

[cameron665]

Thanks drg. Things have certainly changed with regard to B&W over the last ten years or so. I'll keep an eye out for those scanners - they sound ideal.

[Xia_Ke]

Just a quick update, I got the print in from MPIX today. Honestly, I'm pretty disappointed. It just seems "flat". I haven't had a chance to do a FB version of that shot but, even the RC print I did is way better though that print has soe dodging done that the MPIX file didn't. The question is, is it from their printing? Is it from the file I uploaded? I'm not sure. The original 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 image was scanned at 2400dpi as a 16-bit B&W TIFF. Then it was cropped and resized to an overall of 2400x3000 pixels for a 300dpi 8x10 image. I exported the file as a 8-bit B&W JPEG. I should think that resolution should be plenty good for an 8x10 I'm going to chalk up my disappointment to at least partially my fault. Like with any method of turning a shot into a print, you need to tune all of the steps along the way to get the outcome you want. If you are going to try this, I would recommend having several versions of the same print done the first time so that you can see what needs to be done to get the results you want. I'll see if I can get soe scans up in the next couple of days.

[reverberation]

I did a whole series of photographs that were scanned negatives processed in photoshop and printed by ink jet. I have four color printers, so I was able to dial the color in exactly, the quality of the prints was comparatively poor. Printing is all about the paper.

[F-15_Flyer]

In my opinion, as far as black and white film goes, the darkroom print is uncomparible to the digital print.

Color on the otherhand can be arguable. I'm partial to the traditional print, the colors are beautiful, but I have seen a fair share of awesome digital prints as well.

But of course, as far as convenience goes, and no, not always money, digital is probably the best choice.