Has digital printing made the darkroom obsolete?

unclened

unclened

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,009
Edit My Images
No
I've noticed that most labs now print by scanning the negatives and was thinking whether the printing in the darkroom will simply die out in the next stage of film photography's evolution.

Admittedly I've not shot much film but slowly getting myself back to into it and find it a little strange that digital is still a big part of the film workflow.

Keen to hear other people's thoughts.
 
Well there must be a few labs around doing prints the old way? But for DIY you have to be a diehard to do colour printing in a darkroom, although many guys like doing B\W.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well there must be a few labs around doing prints the old way? But for DIY you have to be a diehard to do colour printing in a darkroom, although many guys like doing B\W.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised, sure several UK pro labs offer optical prints, but usually just only for one off prints not whole rolls for instance. Optical type mini-labs disappeared around 1998 -2000 as digital ones started to come around, which suddenly made it much easier to correct things like white balance, contrast etc as to do that optically is a difficult and a skilled process which is why few labs used to offer it except on request and usually paying an additional fee.
There was a lab in London somewhere a couple of years ago that did everything optically still (and were proud of it), but I can't seem to locate them again.
 
Even Ilford use digital printing if I'm not mistaken. It is a dying art I think and there are very few people around who do it professionally. Annoyingly I can't remember the name of the guy who the top film photographers use for their printing. I saw a video about how he does it last year and it was very interesting to see him dodge and burn just using his hands under the light.

Andy
 
@Andysnap, It used to be Gene Nocon, who was utterly excellent, his book "Photographic Printing" is well worth acquiring.
 
That's the fella, cheers Rob.
 
There's a lab near me that has stuck to the analogue printing methods for film, and I have to admit, it's encourage to me to buy a film SLR set-up and want to do more with film.
 
Nice to know a few places do still offer this. I think theres still something special in knowing that a print hasn't passed through a machine in anyway.
 
twhite87 said:
There's a lab near me that has stuck to the analogue printing methods for film, and I have to admit, it's encourage to me to buy a film SLR set-up and want to do more with film.
Click to expand...

Well there are short cuts in doing colour printing the old way esp useful if you use the same film as you can preset the colour knobs (keep explanation simple) on the projector and then just use an analyzer for the exposure (because the density of the neg differs i.e. over exposed etc), well I would guess that a lab would have all these preset settings for different types of film....well at least for a starting point.
Maybe someone working in a lab, reading this thread, can explain everything as my post might be definitely "the old way" of doing things. ;)
 
Andysnap said:
Even Ilford use digital printing if I'm not mistaken. It is a dying art I think and there are very few people around who do it professionally. Annoyingly I can't remember the name of the guy who the top film photographers use for their printing. I saw a video about how he does it last year and it was very interesting to see him dodge and burn just using his hands under the light.

Andy
Click to expand...


I emailed ilford about it and they said that they print from the negative. Which sounds ok but they wont process it in any way, just print it as-is. TBH id rather scan it in, process it to how i want it to look , which essentially does what i would do if printing from a neg, and then send them the file.
 
I have a permanent darkroom with 2 enlargers set up. I haven't made a print using them for some years for one very good reason - I can get better prints with more control over the result using a scanner and an Epson 3880 printer. The results (if I choose the right paper) are reputedly archival, and probably more so than conventional prints if you're not obsessive about two bath fixing, keeping the fixer fresh and meticulous washing.

For colour (and I have made colour prints in a darkroom) scanning and printing digitally is faster, cheaper and more archival.

On the other hand - this is only talking about silver gelatin printing. Alternative processes e.g. cyanotype, chrysotype etc might be mimicable in terms of image colour etc. (possibly!) but not in terms of the total final result. So long as alternative processes exist, there will be a need for a darkroom to complete the job.

Not having had a need to have prints made for me, I can't comment on local labs here; but the lab I do sometimes use does have a conventional darkroom which can also be hired.
 
You could argue digital has all but made film obsolete, but here we are!
 
steveo_mcg said:
You could argue digital has all but made film obsolete, but here we are!
Click to expand...

Might depend on how you define "obsolete". One definition has it as "not in general use" so I suppose full frame and larger digital cameras are obsolete :).

FIlm is still made, so it's not "no longer made" - another definition.

I personally don't mind how I capture an image because I'm only concerned with the print. Hence, I use film because for what I want there is no alternative.
 
StephenM said:
Might depend on how you define "obsolete". One definition has it as "not in general use" so I suppose full frame and larger digital cameras are obsolete :).

FIlm is still made, so it's not "no longer made" - another definition.

I personally don't mind how I capture an image because I'm only concerned with the print. Hence, I use film because for what I want there is no alternative.
Click to expand...

Might do, but "still made" applies equally applies to real photo paper which illford still sell in fair volumes. There are plenty of community dark rooms and a few commercial ones, so wet prints are "still made". I'm not sure where your going with that line?

Not in general use, again there are probably orders of magnitude more ff DSLR in use than any film format to the point where the general public would probably consider it not in use, the question "oh can you still get film for that" is hardly uncommon.
 
hsuffyan said:
Has digital printing made the darkroom obsolete?
Click to expand...

No.

essexash said:
I emailed ilford about it and they said that they print from the negative. Which sounds ok but they wont process it in any way, just print it as-is.
Click to expand...

I know a few people who have used Ilford's service and they all speak highly of it. It's no different to sending a colour film for processing and printing - just black and white!

essexash said:
TBH id rather scan it in, process it to how i want it to look , which essentially does what i would do if printing from a neg, and then send them the file.
Click to expand...

You can do it that way. You can also send them monochrome converted files from a digital camera and receive monochrome prints on real black and white paper which will be much better than anyone could make on an inkjet printer.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
steveo_mcg said:
I'm not sure where your going with that line?

Not in general use, again there are probably orders of magnitude more ff DSLR in use than any film format to the point where the general public would probably consider it not in use, the question "oh can you still get film for that" is hardly uncommon.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that I can't see any definition of "obsolete" that would apply to film; it's still made, so that isn't true; medium format etc digital is hardly in common use (and how many members of the general public, who appear to be the arbiters of "common use", use full frame digital?), so the "common use" definition excludes some (expensive) digital cameras. Epsecially digital large format backs. I doubt that the general public would have even heard of them, let alone question whether they are made.

So all I'm saying is that I personally can't find any definition of obsolete that could apply to film without applying to the same extent to some digital capture devices. Or, putting it another way, I can't see that using the word "obsolete" conveys anything meaningful. It's being used for its connotation, not denotation.
 
There is little point using traditional techniques, or film for that reason, to make conventional photographic images. However the technique is rather nicely exploited by some artists by making it a part of image creation rather than simply transfer to a different medium. I hope it is clear what I mean.
 
StephenM said:
Just pointing out that I can't see any definition of "obsolete" that would apply to film; it's still made, so that isn't true; medium format etc digital is hardly in common use (and how many members of the general public, who appear to be the arbiters of "common use", use full frame digital?), so the "common use" definition excludes some (expensive) digital cameras. Epsecially digital large format backs. I doubt that the general public would have even heard of them, let alone question whether they are made.

So all I'm saying is that I personally can't find any definition of obsolete that could apply to film without applying to the same extent to some digital capture devices. Or, putting it another way, I can't see that using the word "obsolete" conveys anything meaningful. It's being used for its connotation, not denotation.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can apply obsolete to technology which is being constantly being updated, whist they may not be in very wide use flagship FF cameras represent the very cutting edge of camera technology, it may be that Nikon or Canon don't sell many £5k the cameras but that tech trickles down. When was the last update to film? Porta probably, a few years ago any way. Low sales do not make something obsolete lack of meaning development and death spiral of usage make something obsolete. Floppy disks are obsolete, steam engines are obsolete.

Film and darkroom prints have been replaced by digital, in almost every measurable way digital is better. Film is stabilising in sales but the development has stopped and eventually it will cease at which point it will joint floppies and steam traction.
 
daugirdas said:
There is little point using traditional techniques, or film for that reason, to make conventional photographic images.
Click to expand...

If that's the way you want to do it, that is enough of a point. Some people (like me) hate sitting at a computer to post process images but like the darkroom process.

I sort of agree with colour but you cannot equal a black and white print produced on film and printed on proper photographic paper by digital methods.

Also, digital does not yet have the dynamic range of film so it is not a direct replacement.


Steve.
 
steveo_mcg said:
in almost every measurable way digital is better.
Click to expand...

Better is both measurable and subjective.

As far as measurable goes, negative film has superior dynamic range and if you want very large prints, large format film can easily do what the largest digital sensors struggle with.

And subjective is just that. If you prefer digital then it's better for you, if you don't, it isn't.

What is best for one person or application might not be best for another.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Better is both measurable and subjective.

As far as measurable goes, negative film has superior dynamic range and if you want very large prints, large format film can easily do what the largest digital sensors struggle with.

And subjective is just that. If you prefer digital then it's better for you, if you don't, it isn't.

What is best for one person or application might not be best for another.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I did say almost and measurable for a reason. ;)
 
Oh dear. I AM NOT SAYING THAT HIGH END DIGITAL CAMERAS ARE OBSOLETE. I was objecting to the use of the word in relation to film. I was pointing that that on the definition of "obsolete" that referred to not being in general use, then full rame digital cameras, BY VIRTUE OF NOT BEING IN GENERAL USE, are ON THIS DEFINITION, AND ON THIS DEFINITION ONLY, obsolete. No definition of obsolete that I saw referred to whether the technology was still being developed. The definitions were "not currently being made" and "not in general use". On one definition, film isn't obsolete; on the other, high end digital cameras and backs are. I AGREE WITH NEITHER STATEMENT; but as far as I can see they are inescapable conclusions which follow with absolute certainty if either of these two definitions are accepted.

And there are measureable ways in which film is superior to digital for what I want. I couldn't even with an infinite bank account to dip into meet my goals. Yes, I could use digital; but I'd be limited in ways that film does not limit me; the gains would all be in areas that I don't carfe about.
 
Jeez, this is what happens when people take things out of context. My comment which started this off was relating to the op question.

Is the darkroom obsolete? Not any more so than film.

If it works for you better than digital, grand (it does for me). But you've seized on one application of the word obsolete, like it or not film is technically obsolete. That's not to say that it doesn't have some advantages but the horse still has advantages over the car but to claim as a mode of transport the horse is not obsolete would not be honest.


I did say almost and measurable for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
I know a few people who have used Ilford's service and they all speak highly of it. It's no different to sending a colour film for processing and printing - just black and white!

You can do it that way. You can also send them monochrome converted files from a digital camera and receive monochrome prints on real black and white paper which will be much better than anyone could make on an inkjet printer.

Steve.
Click to expand...

Of course its no different to sending a colour film off. Ilford are fantastic and ive nothing but praise for them but all they can do with a negative is stick it on the enlarger and print it. I sent a 5x4 neg off to them for printing and tbh it looked crap when it came back, flat and horrible. I sent them a scan of the same neg which i had scanned in and adjusted in LR and it was lovely. How could they do anything more than just print it? That's not a criticism of them in case you think it is, there is just no way they would spend the time and they wouldn't know what to do with it unless i was stood over their shoulder anyway.

Is the darkroom obsolete, hell no. I just dont see the point in sending a neg off for printing from since you miss an important stage of processing if youre not in control of it.
 
I think in a strange way the digital workflow has revived a few darkroom processes reliant on using large negatives for contact prints. I have been printing cyanotypes of late. In the pre digital days I'd need to shoot 5x4 negative or larger and develop it in a way which would ruin the negative for silver gelatin printing. Now I can just buy some inkjet transparency and take a digital or scanned film photograph and print an a4 negative in only a few minutes
 
Unfortunately, I can't see myself ever having a real wet darkroom again. For one thing, I haven't shot any film for a few years (which I can blame the tumour for, at least in part!) although I have plans to do so but mainly because I don't have the space here. I know that I don't need one to soup films but for me, the real magic of the darkroom is seeing the image appear in the tray. A print coming out of the printer's slot has a little bit of the magic (more so as a dyesub makes its multiple passes) but it's not the same!
As has been said, the scan/PP/print work flow is now the norm and is so much easier than traditional methods, especially for colour. I think I could still do darkroom after a little practice but I bet it would give me a headache!
 
i know you can get some extra depth and specialness with a optical print, but would you notice so much on a normal print of 6x4 or 7x5 ?
 
pingu666 said:
i know you can get some extra depth and specialness with a optical print, but would you notice so much on a normal print of 6x4 or 7x5 ?
Click to expand...

Probably not, you see it on 8x10+ though.
6x4 doesn't really give the image much room IMO
 
pingu666 said:
i know you can get some extra depth and specialness with a optical print, but would you notice so much on a normal print of 6x4 or 7x5 ?
Click to expand...

I don't have much experience, but in the postcard challenge the home-printed 6*4 (or maybe 7*5?) card from @Steve was a league apart from (much, much better than) the digitally printed ones from Moo. There could be all sorts of peripheral reasons for that, including the card stock (the Moo ones were much more robust).
 
^^ Those prices are very reasonable, I may give him a go as I have a couple of negs that I was thinking of having printed digitally that would look much better straight from the neg.
 
Andysnap said:
^^ Those prices are very reasonable, I may give him a go as I have a couple of negs that I was thinking of having printed digitally that would look much better straight from the neg.
Click to expand...
I would recommend you do. I have yet to go back with anything else (it was over a year ago I got the print done) though I really ought to. He even talked me through it on the phone beforehand, discussing what kind of paper would be best, whether I wanted it toning, what I wanted him to emphasise in the print etc. Got the impression he didn't do too many but thoroughly enjoyed it.
 
robhooley167 said:
@Andysnap, It used to be Gene Nocon, who was utterly excellent, his book "Photographic Printing" is well worth acquiring.
Click to expand...
There's also Robin Bell who falls into the "Master Printer" category - see http://www.robinbell.com/

I print from black and white film in the darkroom at home, and the quality of the output is far better than from digital printing, to my eyes. Plus, the whole darkroom experience adds an extra layer of enjoyment to the photographic process. There is a great deal of satisfaction to be gained from controlling all aspects of the image production, from metering manually, developing the negatives, to printing optically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top