Optical Printing??

[Jon Middleton]

Long story, I'll try to be brief. I have a small room in my basement reserved for a darkroom, not built out for ages. Almost 30 years ago I bought a bunch of darkroom equipment from a pro who was getting out of the business, including a 6' Arkay sink, a Super Chromega II enlarger, plus trays, timer, etc. I've gone digital in recent years and have a lot of high quality gear. But, I'm wanting to go back to LF for landscape photography. I have a Zone VI 4x5 I bought new in the early 90's, Serial #2830, along with a 210mm Rodenstock Sironar N and a 90mm Nikon f/8 SW. From my reading, the Nikon is supposed to be very sharp. The Rodenstock not so much, though I have been quite impressed with prints up to 20x24.

So, debating whether to install the sink and do optical printing or not. For color I'm shooting Provia, but I'm thinking that I could shoot B&W and develop it in my recently purchased Stearman 445. Easy. I've scanned transparencies on my Epson V700 with excellent results and have several technically excellent 20x24 color prints utilizing this workflow. So, my options are either scanning my B&W negatives, editing them in PS, then having prints made vs traditional printing techniques. Would like to hear from those here more eperienced than I about which approach they prefer and why, especially if you've done both. I will add that I am retired and have no time or financial constraints. Thanks.

[Drew Wiley]

Is there anything OTHER than real optical printing? What is a scanner? Never heard of that. Well, there is an old dusty one laying around here somewhere, unused for many years. I have better ways,
and am headed there in about ten minutes, in fact, once I'm done with the coffee. Optical printing, either b&w or color, is just so much more nuanced in terms of tonality, detail, hue control in the case of color, or convincing toning with respect to black and white silver papers. It's relaxing and hands-on. No need to keep constantly looking over your shoulder whether your software or hardware is suddenly going to be obsolete. Printing papers are generally better than ever, though at the moment I am having difficulty acquiring my preferred color paper due to all these covid mfg and shipping complications.

Well, turning Provia sheet film into high-end optical color prints, via an enlarger, is a bit involved; I've done a fair amount of that over the past few years. Printing directly from color neg film instead is relatively straightforward and affordable. Optical enlarging of black and white film is as easy or as difficult as ever; just depends how far you want to take it. You can learn the basics in half an hour, and then go from there in terms of fine-tuning your film exposure and development to match your print expectations. Hopefully, you have a true glass carrier for your Chromega. Futzing around trying to find the "best" camera lenses means nothing if the film isn't kept flat in the enlarger carrier, and it doesn't have a good lens too. You've got the enlarger already; so add some decent ventilation and the sink with its drainage, and why not? Why imitate using software when you're already so close to having the real thing?

[Alan9940]

For color (not that I do much of that), I scan and post-process / print on the desktop. For B&W, I do both scan/print and print in a darkroom. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with either approach though I will say that a finely crafted B&W silver gelatin print just seems to have a quality that no inkjet print can match. Neither method of working is easy. To craft a fine B&W print in the darkroom requires years of experience. To generate a good B&W print from the desktop requires a knowledgeable worker and is SO much more than simply clicking print. For example, many years ago I was involved with a small group of photographers where we crafted our own gray inks and printed via a piece of software that allowed user control of each channel in the print head. B&W desktop printing has come a long way since then, but you still have to possess the necessary knowledge to produce a beautiful print.

[Jon Middleton]

I'm not going to try to deal with color at home. I'll continue shooting and scanning transparencies, cleaning up the digital files and having prints made outside. Regarding B&W, I already have most of the equipment to optically print and have a tiny bit of experience developing film and optically printing on an old Omega 67 condenser enlarger. So I won't be starting completely from scratch. Just almost. I think I'll proceed with the darkroom, as the resale value of most of this stuff is nil. I contacted my local high school about maybe donating the sink, but they're all digital now. Plus, the room is already painted about a Zone IV gray, ceiling included. I can always go the route of scanning my negatives, getting rid of the sink, enlargers and repainting and repurposing the room.

[Alan Klein]

Good luck on whatever you do. Curious who you use for outside printing? Would you recommend them for color? BW?

[jnantz]

Long story, I'll try to be brief. I have a small room in my basement reserved for a darkroom, not built out for ages. Almost 30 years ago I bought a bunch of darkroom equipment from a pro who was getting out of the business, including a 6' Arkay sink, a Super Chromega II enlarger, plus trays, timer, etc. I've gone digital in recent years and have a lot of high quality gear. But, I'm wanting to go back to LF for landscape photography. I have a Zone VI 4x5 I bought new in the early 90's, Serial #2830, along with a 210mm Rodenstock Sironar N and a 90mm Nikon f/8 SW. From my reading, the Nikon is supposed to be very sharp. The Rodenstock not so much, though I have been quite impressed with prints up to 20x24.

So, debating whether to install the sink and do optical printing or not. For color I'm shooting Provia, but I'm thinking that I could shoot B&W and develop it in my recently purchased Stearman 445. Easy. I've scanned transparencies on my Epson V700 with excellent results and have several technically excellent 20x24 color prints utilizing this workflow. So, my options are either scanning my B&W negatives, editing them in PS, then having prints made vs traditional printing techniques. Would like to hear from those here more eperienced than I about which approach they prefer and why, especially if you've done both. I will add that I am retired and have no time or financial constraints. Thanks.

might as well enjoy yourself! if that has to do with scanning and having an outside printer make your prints that's not a bad choice unless you really have your heart set on doing everything in-house. There's a learning curve and if you don't mind spending the time and money on something that will be fun, might as well have fun, you only life once from what I've read. FWIW I've seen digital/pigment prints and digital C-Prints that looked absolutely beautiful, at least as stunning as any "traditional optical print" I have seen. you're probably right about re-sale value. we're lucky we have a communal art thing that took over the nearby city and I've donated a lot of things to them over the years ( entire silk screen studio, TV quality video gear &c ). not sure if that stuff exists near you but if you decide to outsource your printing it might be a great thing to look into. A lot of places operate on a shoe string budget and love donations. and you can turn your former darkroom now freed up basement into a gallery :)

best of luck deciding on the next step!
John

[Ari]

I'm with John. Enjoy yourself.
Both methods can produce beautiful results, the only question is how do you want to spend your time?
I agree about not doing color printing at home. I process color film here with the Unicolor C-41 press kit, but everything goes through the scanner eventually.

If it were me, I'd use the empty room as a dedicated scanning area, and keep a large format inkjet close by.
Once you calibrate everything, printing will be pretty quick, post-scan, and you'll spend more time shooting.

[Jon Middleton]

All the prints in my home theater were done by a local lab here in SLC called Master Lab. They matted and framed them, too. I have a few other prints done by my old college roommate at his home on an Epson. These photos don't do the prints justice:

225691

225692

225693

[Drew Wiley]

John - NO current digital medium that I'm aware of can be correctly labeled as pigment printing. Digital negatives might be involved in making pigment prints, and certain people on this forum do that. And I know people who go from scans to laser etching of all kinds of printing plates. But Inkjet is NOT pigment printing. That's a common error in describing them, with misleading permanence connotations. Those inks are complex blends of finely ground pigments, lakes (dyed inert particles), and rather ordinary photographic dyes. It would be impossible to get a full selection of actual pigments to pass through those tiny nozzles, which is one of the inherent priorities of that technology. It's no skin off my back; but real pigment printers might be sensitive over the misnomer. And galleries certainly exploit the misunderstanding.

[Alan Klein]

All the prints in my home theater were done by a local lab here in SLC called Master Lab. They matted and framed them, too. I have a few other prints done by my old college roommate at his home on an Epson. These photos don't do the prints justice:
...
That's a great entertainment room. What kind of projector? Who gets the middle chair?

[jvo]

might as well enjoy yourself! if that has to do with scanning and having an outside printer make your prints that's not a bad choice unless you really have your heart set on doing everything in-house. ...

best of luck deciding on the next step!
John

Having had to close my darkroom in the past year and move into the digital arena... what you enjoy is key - not the logistics.

I enjoyed the darkroom, the process, and results. I found I was unfamiliar with anything digital. I'm a journeyman photographer and far from proficient in the digital world. I have found new enjoyment in producing more, and varied types of work. As I've been able to produce more, the quality, and thus enjoyment, of my work has increased - for myself and others.

Good luck.

[jnantz]

John - NO current digital medium that I'm aware of can be correctly labeled as pigment printing. Digital negatives might be involved in making pigment prints, and certain people on this forum do that. And I know people who go from scans to laser etching of all kinds of printing plates. But Inkjet is NOT pigment printing. That's a common error in describing them, with misleading permanence connotations. Those inks are complex blends of finely ground pigments, lakes (dyed inert particles), and rather ordinary photographic dyes. It would be impossible to get a full selection of actual pigments to pass through those tiny nozzles, which is one of the inherent priorities of that technology. It's no skin off my back; but real pigment printers might be sensitive over the misnomer. And galleries certainly exploit the misunderstanding.

Thanks for your opinion Drew, but it's not really what galleries and museums, archivists and other people involved with the the current situation believe .

Have fun!
John

[Jon Middleton]

That's a great entertainment room. What kind of projector? Who gets the middle chair?

The projector is a Sony VPL-HW55ES. The room was finished in July of 2014, so the PJ is 8 years old. Still produces an excellent image. I've tossed around the idea of updating it but there's no real need. The room serves three purposes, as a theater, a place to display some of my photography and a high end listening room. That middle chair is the MLP, or main listening position, when listening to music. Speakers are B&W 800D S2s, powered by a Bryston 4B SST2 amp. Both the speakers and amp, like the PJ, have been superseded by newer models, but no matter. As I built the entire room myself from raw lumber, I usually occupy the MLP.:) It's a nice place to hang out.

[Jon Middleton]

Thanks for your opinion Drew, but it's not really what galleries and museums, archivists and other people involved with the the current situation believe .

Have fun!
John

So, what is the permanence of the various types of prints under controlled light? I understand that ink jet prints will last longer than me.

[Jon Middleton]

I can see having my color stuff printed outside, some landscape, wildlife, birds in flight, etc. But I can also see doing all of my B&W stuff start to finish. My version of "Fine Art".

[Duolab123]

I still like making optical c prints. For me it's a fun process. I do enjoy making simple inkjet prints from digital or scans of slides. I'm not selling anything. My wife is a retired museum curator and thinks I'm crazy to fiddle with color.. I do love making nice b&w prints on fiber paper. I haven't really fooled around with alt processes. Someday.

My advice is follow your idea of fun. Nothing is wrong, just different :)

[jnantz]

So, what is the permanence of the various types of prints under controlled light? I understand that ink jet prints will last longer than me.

Hi Jon
Supposedly it's hundreds if not thousands of years ... I'm not exactly sure, the people who sell the inks and papers would be happy tell you if you contact them... Koduck and Wilhelm/IPI (image permanency institute) went on record saying
that RC prints if the process sequence was right, could last as long or longer than any black and white silver gelatin print... but to a lot of people RC is a dirty word and a people out there who will refute everything
claimed by manufacturers but not really say much else.. kind of a black hole but as long as you don't mind making the stuff and making it again in 10-15 or whatever magic number it is, years. should still be fun

Maybe the Northeast Documents Conservation Center might know the answers to these questions they are archivists and help museums and libraries ... ( NEDCC.org ), or maybe someplace like the Getty ... they are invested in purchasing thing made with new and old technology, they probably have a better idea than us common unwashed folks ..

John

[Sal Santamaura]

So, what is the permanence of the various types of prints under controlled light?...For inkjet prints, it depends on the printer, inks and paper. Most reliable data are here:


https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/light-fade-test-results/

[Duolab123]

i wince when Optical Print is used as surrogate for darkroom even though I understand why, when it occurred.

This is an optical print (to me & mine)

https://youtu.be/qwMLOjqPmbQ

I've seen this video at some point in my life. So absolutely amazing. The technology and skills beyond belief. So cool.I remember going to Star Wars, big theater, 70mm??? I almost crapped my pants on the opening scene.;)

[Drew Wiley]

John - you do know you're passing along total mythology, don't you? Inkjet prints haven't been around all that long. But if you're willing to chime back in over the next few hundred or thousands of years, telling us how those prints are actually holding up over time, please do so. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll still be around long enough to listen. The person or service that has done the most recent work on that particular question is Aardenburg, not Wilhelm.

Otherwise, no kind of accelerated 24 hr chamber "torture" test can even begin to predict all the potential variables, must less extrapolate any of that into an actual number of years. It might identify which specific colorants are more likely to survive than others - and that's the whole problem! The different colorants in inkjet inks are not equal in that respect. So differential fading and color shifts are inevitable down the line, depending on the exact makeup. It was no different with industrial pigments and their accelerated aging tests, except that those were mostly real pigments. You clearly have close to zero actual education on the subject at this point in time. I don't intend that as an insult, but just to point out that it helps no one to blindly pass on ridiculous hearsay misinformation. Any gallery making such claims is either itself misinformed or outright deceptive. Even any watercolor painter knows that different pigments aren't created equal.

And Jon - The whole topic of permanence is quite complex. There are no simple generic answers. But in general, lighting high in UV is bad for just about any kind of color image; so the nature of the display lighting is a huge variable. But it you want to see what a really permanent palette of hues consists of, look at the surface of Mars - real time and UV tested pigments! - but not much of a selection.

[Drew Wiley]

Industrial Light & Magic ?? - c'mon. I broke a fan belt right in front of his darn ranch entrance. Didn't have a cell phone along. Rude bronze Yoda just sat there in the driveway and didn't even bother to help. He's a fake guru too. Finally, a real non-digitized human stopped and made the tow truck call for me.

[jnantz]

John - you do know you're passing along total mythology, don't you?

Drew
I suggested Jon contact manufacturers, conservators and the Getty, I admitted I didn't really know how long anything would last ( was clueless )
and tipped my hat to you, who of course right on cue said the whole thing was BS. I also said if they need to be printed again in 15 years it would be fun like it is now.
Sorry for perpetuating a myth, I guess it's not fun ?

here's what I wrote, it helps to actually read what I said

Northeast Documents Conservation Center might know the answers to these questions they are archivists and help museums and libraries ... ( NEDCC.org ), or maybe someplace like the Getty ... they are invested in purchasing thing made with new and old technology, they probably have a better idea than us common unwashed folks ..

John

[Michael R]

Industrial Light & Magic ?? - c'mon. I broke a fan belt right in front of his darn ranch entrance. Didn't have a cell phone along. Rude bronze Yoda just sat there in the driveway and didn't even bother to help. He's a fake guru too. Finally, a real non-digitized human stopped and made the tow truck call for me.

Bronze Yoda? Talk about tacky.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm not going to dignify that, John. I know what conservators do. I wasn't born yesterday. Inkjet prints were. I have half a century of industrial pigment experience under my belt, including an architectural color consultation background, among a number of other related pursuits. I've advised both museum staff and galleries on the topic, but architects especially.

Do some galleries outright lie to make a sale? - lots of them, unfortunately. That's nothing new.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - you didn't know Yoda is bronze? He recently got moved somewhere - I think the Space movie museum turned down by the SF Presidio, but being built in Chicago instead - close enough for your to go visit him. He doesn't say much. All that movie stuff was make-believe. The real Yoda just sat there with seagulls and other birds pooping on him, causing the usual verdi gris green streaks on the bronze. Skywalker Ranch itself is largely abandoned. Some orchard and vineyard planting has taken place adjacent to the highway. But Lucas kindly allowed a trail easement across his property up to the top of the ridge, with some very nice views. A decent knee workout hauling an 8x10, I can attest. I often drive Lucas Valley Road over to Pt Reyes to avoid stoplight traffic through San Rafael.

[jnantz]

I'm not going to dignify that, John. I know what conservators do. I wasn't born yesterday. Inkjet prints were. I have half a century of industrial pigment experience under my belt, including an architectural color consultation background, among a number of other related pursuits. I've advised both museum staff and galleries on the topic.

Do some galleries outright lie to make a sale? - lots of them, unfortunately. That's nothing new.

drew are you now a nationally know conservator and art gallery who deals specifically in artwork, paper and photography, and you know longevity concerns of pigment prints and photographic images made in 2022 ?
It has nothing to do with making a sale or architectural color consultation, it is specific to this subject photography and modern materials, and I referred to people who actually might know the answers.
I would imagine Jon would rather get valid information from people who have current knowledge, not information/potentially outdated information from some random unknown person in a photography forum who claims to know all the answers.

[Drew Wiley]

Believe whatever you want, John. At this point in time, you just don't have enough background to even ask the right questions. Do just a tiny bit of actual homework, please, before you start pontificating on who does or does not know what they are talking about. There is nothing outdated about my information. And I sure as heck don't need your endorsement. It's just time to stop calling inkjets pigment prints. Anybody who has read the patents on actual ingredients recognizes that.

[jnantz]

Jon
The NEDCC.com folks know an awful lot about an awful lot. When I had questions about a variety of photographic subjects ( conservation of dry plates, conservation of ww1 and ww2 era banquet prints &c ) they were able to help me, I was referred to them by the curator of an well known Art School 's Museum Curator. Might as well be in touch with people who deal with longevity and conservation issues all day. It's who museums go to when they want help and they are a known quantity, not some random person on the internet and claims to know all the answers.

Good luck!

John

it helps to actually read what I wrote:

Northeast Documents Conservation Center might know the answers to these questions they are archivists and help museums and libraries ... ( NEDCC.org ), or maybe someplace like the Getty ... they are invested in purchasing thing made with new and old technology, they probably have a better idea than us common unwashed folks ..

John

[Sal Santamaura]

...The person or service that has done the most recent work on that particular question is Aardenburg, not Wilhelm...If you didn't have me on ignore, you'd have seen that I linked to Aardenburg's results just two posts before yours.

What's most interesting about Aardenburg's results is how they explode the myth that even fiber base silver halide prints made today, and certainly RA-4 chromogenic prints, have life expectancies on display remotely like prints made a century ago. In fact, the best inkjet prints he tested did far better than Galerie FB, not to mention Fujicolor Crystal Archive color.

Extrapolation and assumption are perilous activities. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Since you double-posted, I just checked, Sal. Yes, I've had conversations with Aardenburg and respect how he has advanced well beyond Wilhelm's methodology. But given all my own background with accelerated aging tests, which do have their place, there is simply no substitute for sheer time under a wide variety of variables. Fuji has quietly dialed back their claims of CA permanence, even as they continue to improve that product line. I've done a fair amount of real world monitoring of CA prints under commercial lighting conditions. They've done well; but I sure as heck wouldn't extrapolate a 70 yr lifespan for them under typical display conditions; maybe half that. Chromogenic prints also tend to yellow over time due to residual coupler, another issue Fuji is gradually improving. Dark storage? - Too soon to tell.

The holy grail of actually permanent nano-pigments capable of passing through tiny inkjet nozzles hasn't been attainted yet. Before I retired, I was in direct contact with those doing intense research into the question in the EU, and they weren't even close to finding a workaround to organic dyes in certain hue categories. Same here in the US. True layered-on pigment printing does not have that mechanical limitation.

[Duolab123]

There's a whole lot of info here

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/index.html

I have a copy of Wilhelm and Brower 1993 book. Somewhat humorous, I picked up the book at a used bookstore, water damaged, some musty odor. 30 year old book doesn't have a relevant data. These folks really didn't like what Kodak had to offer (color negative paper).

I have Cibachrome prints on display, as indirect lighting as manageable, still look great after 20 years.

Best Regards Mike

[Drew Wiley]

Ciba was my specialty. Those in dark storage look like they were made yesterday. Same with those displayed under ordinary tungsten light. But direct sunlight, halogens, and CFL's are UV voodoo. Last month I put a couple of my earliest ones back on the wall, including an old Kodachrome to first version Ciba print that sat in indirect mountain window light for nearly 30 years before I recovered it. The yellow component has faded a bit, but the print still looks nice.

Wilhelm did not clearly distinguish the primary variables concerning Ciba, and relied too much on accelerated aging tests. He was a lot better looking backwards, evaluating older media, especially movie films and antique images, and what was best for them or not. Hindsight is always better.

[Duolab123]

Well first off I am embarrassed to admit this, but I spent the last 6 days chasing my tail because I mixed up RA4 Developer without using starter. I must have had a brain fart, I was diluting the replenisher correctly but for some unknown reason I neglected to add the 25mL / L of starter.

I was getting a bit of a tan chemical fogging. I was using a Jobo and my favorite Kodak Rapid Color processor. Both these, especially the Kodak unit have intense agitation. Oh well I need to print more often.

What a relief, I was ready to go get a Geiger counterl;)

[Drew Wiley]

It's a bit premature for a Geiger counter. If WW III did begin, and I somehow survived the first round of nukes, I'd be glowing in the dark and fogging all my film and paper anyway.

[Jon Middleton]

I didn't realize that optical printing was so controversial. Maybe I should have asked about politics.:rolleyes:

[Duolab123]

I didn't realize that optical printing was so controversial. Maybe I should have asked about politics.:rolleyes:

Oh no. ;)

[Jon Middleton]

Okay, here are my first results. I shot two images with the Zone VI and 90mm f/8 Nikon at a local park. My Plus X is old, the box is dated 1/93. Developed in HC110, dilution H for ~11 minutes. Scanned on my Epson V700, then edited to adjust contrast, exposure, etc. Had to crop quite a bit as my composition wasn't great. But I think this workflow will work best for me:

225768

[Duolab123]

Looks fantastic. You're in the groove!

[Tin Can]

Who invented 'optical printing'?

I only know of printing with light

or horrible machines

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on your optics, as newscasts would say.

[Bob Salomon]

Who invented 'optical printing'?

I only know of printing with light

or horrible machines

We used, among other enlargers and printers, LogE cathode ray tube enlargers and contact printers in the USAF. They would dodge and burn simultaneously. You are probably very familiar with one print from the enlarger. It was used to print the pictures of the missiles in the holds of the Russian ships on their way back from Cuba.

[Duolab123]

We used, among other enlargers and printers, LogE cathode ray tube enlargers and contact printers in the USAF. They would dodge and burn simultaneously. You are probably very familiar with one print from the enlarger. It was used to print the pictures of the missiles in the holds of the Russian ships on their way back from Cuba.

Russians! They're always up to something!:cool:

[Duolab123]

I resurrected my 1973 Kodak whirring in the dark drum processor. With twenty cents worth of chemistry and 50 cents for a sheet of 8x10 Fuji color paper I'm making color prints again. I was a little rusty. I stuck with it got some beautiful color prints. Way Way more fun than inkjet (nothing wrong with inkjet). 45 seconds developer, 30 seconds stop, 45 seconds blix, 1 minute 30 seconds wash. I don't need the stop, but it makes me feel better, minute wash would be adequate, I like a thorough wash. :cool: