Hello

I am an M-user and I am interested in getting into BW digital. I have a traditional darkroom set-up already, but I am intrigued by the possibilities of digital. I am hearing alot about Piezography; is that a good road to follow? Does Photoshop have a BW capability? Any thoughts, comments? Thank you. Regards, Richard Fulco

-- Richard Fulco (calcinc@mn.rr.com), April 16, 2001

Answers

Darkroom? What's a darkroom. Soon after getting B&W piezography going on my Epson 1160, I realized I was going to be making much nicer prints on the computer than in my darkroom, and gave it away while there was still someone, somewhere, who would use the stuff. :-)

Once you figure out the tonal things you can do with Photoshop, the darkroom will be a dead issue.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 16, 2001.

Richard, don't throw away your darkroom too soon. I've been involved in digital printing for a number of years now, both as an end user (photographer), and as a full line dealer in digital imaging products. I can easily do manipulations in photoshop in a fraction of the time as in the darkroom. In fact there are things that can be done in photoshop that are well nigh impossible to do 'wet'. And the output I get from my printers rival that of a good RC paper 'most' most of the time. If you work primarily in RC the digital darkroom is a viable alternative. But I have yet to see a digital output B&W print match a 'carefully' made fibre print. There is a depth of tonality and creaminess of contrast range that just does not happen digitally. But you have to spend the time to really master wet printing to achieve this. It's sort of the same as the people who claim they can get just as good a print from RC paper as can be had on fibre. They just ain't great printers! If you add in the issue of permanence that too will lead you to keep your darkroom. Accelerated testing says that digital prints can be made with a lifespan of 75 years, remember these are the same test procedures that said a while back that RC papers were now 'archival.' Along comes the little issue of 'bronzing' and everyone is eating there words. When I see a digital print that actually is 75 years old I'll believe it. The recent problem with Epson Glossy Deluxe photo paper bears this out. Twice they released it saying it was 25 year paper, and twice they had to recall it. Digital definitely has its place, but to make blanket statements like the above is highly misleading.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 16, 2001.

One of these days us old-timers will be teaching courses in quaint alternative processes: using sensitized papers exposed to light and developed in liquids!

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 16, 2001.

I use PiezographyBW with an Epson 1160 printer. It's producing the best black and white prints I've ever made, in conjunction with a good film scanner and Photoshop. I haven't had a darkroom to work in for 16 years.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 16, 2001.

Richard,

I have neither the space nor the inclination to get involved in a wet darkroom, hence I acquired a decent scanner( negs and slides) and an Epson 1270. My very first attempts using PS6 were very satisfying in color. It took a while to master(to some extent) the intricacies of PS, but that was worth it. I have been experimenting with BW on the Epson and after some experimenting , am now able to get some very good B&W prints after some tweaking in PS. New Epson photo printers use the piezography principle and with the 1270, I am truly amazed at the quality of what I am able to achieve. Granted, a carefully and professionally done BW is hard to match, but when you factor in the cost, I am convinced that I went the right route. Although there has been a lot of noise about color shifting re. the 1270, I am yet to experience it. As far as longevity is concened, I am not so vain as to want my prints to outlast me( after I'm gone, I won't care). Personally, I find the digital alternative very rewarding and some of my prints grace my walls and those of some of my friends.

J-D

-- Jean-David Borges (jdborges@home.com), April 16, 2001.

I am using PS and the Epson 870 and enjoying it very much. I too rarely have time for a wet darkroom and when I do, I print medium format. The prints from the Epson are really excellent and I must admit that for all intents and purposes they are the same as what I can produce from a wet darkroom with RC papers. The tremendous retouching abilities of digital are a formidable advantage when working with a small format in 35mm, as are the superb dodging and burning techniques which allow you to do things that one could only do with extreme motor skill (retouching) or difficult and lengthy time in a darkroom. Many things you can do digitally are pretty well impossible to do in a conventional darkroom. For this reason I just do not see myself going back to a wet darkroom for black and white in 35mm. In this sense my photos are generally of better quality than what I used to do in the darkroom. However, I would agree with those who say that the prints are not quite the same as a conventional silver halide print - they do often carry a very slight color cast - it is very difficult to get a completely neutral print. In fact it does not worry me, but many people dislike this aspect of the digital darkroom very much. I see the other advantages and don't worry. I do however think that a real wet darkroom print carefully printed on fiber paper is better (richer blacks, smoother gradation of tones), but you have to ask yourself in all honesty how important it is to get perfection for the 1 in a 100 shots you print compared to getting much better prints for the 99 others?

Actually, I enjoy the black and white digital darkroom much more than doing color - you have so much control and there are no color balance issues.

The archival issue for prints is not of importance to me as I do not sell my work: as far as I am concerned if the shots last 5 - 10 years that would be fine for me - by that time I would probably want to replace them anyway with others by then. I am not going the digital camera route and will resist this though, as I think the archival issues are much more problematic when we talk about the ultimate source of the image. Negatives on real film are much more likely to last in practical terms I think than those stored on obsolete digital media.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 17, 2001.

Peizography is new to me, I guess that's part of why I read this group, its always informative. What do you guys like in the way of scanners?

Many thanks.

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), April 17, 2001.

I'm using a Polaroid SS4000 with Hamrick's Vuescan software. A fine combination, almost worthy of Leica negs...

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), April 17, 2001.