I have had a dry darkroom now for 2 yrs. I scan my B&W negatives on a transparency scanner. After adjusting values, dodging and burning and cleaning up the print at 600% magnification I run test prints, save the files to disk and have them printed on the Fujix 3000 on Fujix Pictro paper which, to the best of my understanding, is 150 yrs. archivable. The prints are dead consistant, clean, rich and full of fine detail. The process allows me to do ten times the work 100% more efficently with all keepers (no rejects) from the master file. Soon these files will be turned into digital transparencies and printed as platium or on fiber. Why aren't more photographers working this way and why the snobbery toward the digitally produced im

-- Dominic F. Ciancibelli (dominic@scattercreek.com), August 12, 2000

Answers

Because a Fujix 3000, scanner, and turning files into digital transparencies is not in my budget right now. Plus I appreciate hand made furniture, hand carved sculpture and hand printed enlargements. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Luddite, I have all my color work printed digitally. But B/W hand crafted work is like a painting, individual and unique.

-- Ted Davis (teddavis@exactphoto.com), August 13, 2000.

Dominic, I'm not qualified to answer your last question, but I would suggest shooting color transparency film and using the channel mixer in Photoshop to create a monochrome image. I agree the Fujix prints look great, but the last I checked, they were rated something like 15 years, not 150 years. Of course, you can check the Wilhelm site, which has become the standard reference for archival estimates.

BTW, I'm convinced the channel mixer is Photoshop's most incredible (and relatively secret) feature for B&W artists. If you haven't tried it, I think you'll be impressed.

---

-- Bill Noll (billnoll@aol.com), August 13, 2000.

don't you think its a real loss to think that once you have printed an image, you will never print (insert improve here) an image again. This is one of the great things about photography that is unique amongst many other art forms -- the evolution of the image throughout its (and the photographers) creative printing lifetime.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), August 14, 2000.

I don't think there is any place for snobbery towards any medium. However, during my day job I like to swear at my PC, and in my spare time I like to swear at my lack of printing skills.

I find there is something magical about a 'wet' darkroom. Making good prints is so difficult and challenging. I am sure your end product is superior to what I can achieve, but to me it feels that the PC is creating a distance between the craft and the craft-maker.

Then again, I would love to have the money and spend it on a new PC with all the toys to make digital prints... All I need is time and money to explore everything! Maybe that is the key: if we enjoy what we are doing, whether 'dry' or 'wet', and we can enjoy the end product - flawless or not - than we have engaged in positive,creative work. There is somthing to be said for that.

-- Paul Oosthoek (pauloosthoek@hotmail.com), August 14, 2000.

Dominic,

in response to your email, I don't think that there is ever a time for "enough is enough" when printing (interpreting) an image. I'm not talking as much about improving the quality of the print as I am talking about changing the "feel or mood" of the print. It evolves just as we do in a physical and emotional sense. Have you ever seen side by side prints by one of your favorite photographers that were printed many years apart and seen what has changed? This to me is one of the most intimate aspects of what I do in my personal work (Professionally I work with digital images in the advertising world all the time) I don't want to see one spill into the other.

As for quality, you may be happy with fujix prints for your personal bw work, but for me they are far from reaching the same quality, archival standards or "feel" or a traditional print. The closest that you can get it is still overly expensive and very inconvenient to have produced.

I have nothing against the digital darkroom, but for fine prints I just don't see that it is up to snuff yet for the reasons that I have already stated. I will gladly switch over when it is an advantage to do so.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), August 15, 2000.