I find myself agreeing with most things that Mark C says, and this post is no exception. I also believe that there is something more to wet prints than scanned (more about that in a moment) but that does not mean that one way is Good and the other way is Bad. There are so many avenues to interesting prints and once you start investigating them you really see how photography (the image capture) is just the beginning of the creation of art - creating an image that draws some sort of emotional response from the viewer.
My reasons for wanting to do wet darkroom are part aesthetic and part nostalgia. If it wasn't a part of my "youth" and young adulthood, I may not be as drawn to it as I am today. On the other hand, I've only very recently become aware of Lith Printing and it interests me a LOT. There are a lot of practitioners out there, but the two gurus are Tim Rudman and Wolfgang Moersch. Rudman's 1999 work "Master Photographer's Lith Printing Course: A Definitive Guide to Creative Lith Printing" is considered the authoritative work on the process. My copy should be arriving any day. His "World of Lith Printing" (like the first title) is an update and also discusses the "digital" way of (what I can only describe as "simulating" the Lith Printing look). Both titles are out of print and so over-priced. I decided to get his World book via Inter-Library Loan and have put in a request. Just type "lith print" into http://images.google.com and I think you will see why I find the process appealing. There is no One Look. Unusual and interesting colors can be achieved from B&W photographic papers. It can be difficult to print the same negative twice and achieve the same result, because you over expose the paper (2 or 3x) and snatch it out of the developer and plunge it into the stop bath when it reaches the level you desire. Ansel Adams is probably rolling over in his grave, but I can't avoid being drawn to what I've seen in the look and "feel" of lith prints. It is funny, but philosophically I'm questioning my own attitudes and responses to different types of work, both digital and "analog". For example, why do I turn up my nose at obviously overcooked HDR color digital images, only preferring HDR to achieve "photo-realistic" results, but then am drawn to so many of these B&W Alternative Processes that are often the antithesis of Zone System perfection? I'm not sure, but there is something about monochrome (or Way Beyond Monochrome) images appeals to me and that makes such manipulations more palatable (even more desirable) to me. I also have to admit at least some bias for the "analog" over the digital. From an aesthetic point of view, I think I can make an analogy for what Mark C is saying: You can get computer-driven knitting machines today that can turn out garments that are perfect in every way, but if Aunt Helen has one and gives you a stocking cap made by it, does it really mean as much to you as it would if you knew she sat there with knitting needles putting in each course and wale over the course of many days or weeks? It is partly the labor involved that makes something valuable, and I can't help but feel this is true in the production of the photographic image, as well. On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Mark C <pdml-m...@charter.net> wrote: > On 2/2/2016 12:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> >> I need to get back into shooting and developing my own B&W film. Even >> if I just scan the negatives and print digitally. >> >> My department is considering adding a Photography Minor to our >> program. As far as I can tell, having a B&W film photography course is >> pretty much standard for a Photography Minor, but some schools are >> actually skipping darkroom printing and just teaching the processing >> of negatives along with scanning. Anethma to me (and still not viable >> for a Photography Major, thankfully) but it's probably the way of the >> future. >> >> > Scanning and printing digitally offers tremendous control over how the print > looks but a digital print will always lack the "hand crafted" aspect that a > wet print has. People seem to like darkroom prints in that each print is > uniquely prepared by the photographer. You can limit the edition size of a > digital print, but they will still be more or less exactly the same and lack > the panache of a hand pulled wet print. I also think that there is a > perception that there is a lack of authenticity when digital processes are > used to mimic analog processes (a notion that I personally reject.) > > That said - I go all all out with digital processing of scanned film, > including DOF / focus stacking, hdr toning, micro contrast adjustments, etc. > I enjoy the process of shooting film, making creative decisions in terms of > how to develop film and like the tonality of a well developed negative. A > well exposed, developed and scanned negative is a great starting point for > creating a digital print. So far in 2016 the vast majority of my shooting > has been B&W. I'm guessing about 40 rolls (some 120 but mostly 35mm) thus > far. I would argue that hybrid processing - analog captures with digital > processing and printing - is a distinct category of photography. > > Learning wet printing would be really interesting but considering the time > it would require and all the other interesting things I have yet to do, I > doubt that I will ever engage with it. > > Mark > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- “The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ” ― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
