Digital BW, The Print

>
> Yeah, darkrooms...I still have my enlarger after 15 years and I NEVER
> had to replace anything on it. I wish I had the space in my new house
> to set it up again and forget this digital mess.
>
> AnnMarie

Not sure "mess" is an apt metaphor for the digital way of working,  
especially compared to a wet darkroom.  As many of us on these lists  
have, I came from a wet black and white darkroom background, which I  
totally fell in love with right from the first time I saw an image  
come up in the developer.  And I still have fond memories of working  
that way.  And there still remains something inherent in the silver  
print which even those of us now fully accepting of inkjet will  
probably still acknowledge- some inherent quality that's difficult to  
describe, but arguably recognizably there.  And it can be expensive  
to get set up to produce quality digital prints, the more so the  
larger the print.  Scanners and/or digital cameras with enough  
resolution to make large prints are not cheap.  (But I remember my  
wet darkrooms and cameras and lenses weren't exactly cheap, either.)   
Having said all these things and fondly reminisced, however, I must  
point out that there are reasons why the many fine shooters and  
printers on these lists are not looking back.  There are hazards of  
working with photo chemicals over a period of years, for example.  I  
knew a guy who immediately lost his hearing if he went into a wet  
darkroom again after having printed in one for many years.  Odd, but  
true.  I know there are others who have developed other problems with  
photo chemicals over time.  But for me the main strength of the  
digital way of printing is the power of the editing capabilities in  
Photoshop, followed by the repeatability of those results in  
printing.  Another strength is the ability to print on fine art matte  
papers.  I happen to like the look of them, not to say that I think  
they are better than my old favorite Oriental Seagull.  But Oriental  
Seagull is no longer with us, no? (I could be wrong about this; it  
was gone for quite a while about the time I was transitioning to  
digital.)  And I do like the look of prints on matte papers.  They  
are not the same but they are good in their own right.  And if you  
frame under glass, the gloss advantage of a glossy fiber print is not  
as dominant.  Unglassed, yes, it is still there.  But the editing...  
first of all, all your wet experience will serve you very well as you  
edit in Photoshop. Nothing you've learned in the wet darkroom will go  
to waste printing digitally.  It will just be far easier to execute!   
My guess is that your experience will be one where you will be able  
to do things that previously you had to do either with filters on a  
VC paper or with graded papers, possibly with flashing, for example.   
Now you will be able to do those things far more easily and with far  
more precision using tools like Curves in Photoshop. And you'll have  
the advantage, with your experience, of knowing just what you want to  
achieve in things like local contrast etc.  Things like scratches-  
I'm sure you've had a neg that was scratched in the holder from top  
to bottom.  This has to be the most important image you've got to  
warrant spotting it, right?  And then you've got one spotted print,  
unless you want to try to spot the neg.  How long does that take?   
Hours?  And you've got to do that for each print of that image you  
want to make.  In Photoshop you can do that same thing in maybe 5, 10  
minutes, and then the image is saved from then on.  And of course any  
kind of blended image is far easier in Photoshop than trying to do it  
with multiple enlargers (although I think it's interesting to note  
that, even given these tools, nobody seems to have surpassed, or even  
equalled, in my view, the imaginative work of Jerry Ulesmann (sp?)).   
So what I'm saying is that instead of looking at digital as being a  
"mess", leave yourself open to finding all the strengths and  
advantages of it.  You might be pleasantly surprised.  If, after  
working in it for a period of time where you've mastered it enough to  
really know, and you still prefer the wet darkroom, so be it.  Then  
it's a matter of taste, and I don't disagree with preferring gelatin  
prints for whatever reason.  But I would reserve judgement until  
you've really worked with inkjet and, for example, made a digital  
print of one of your wet prints and found, as I have, that you've  
been able to make an even better print, one that you've been able to  
improve in ways that escaped you in the wet darkroom.

James Irelan