Thank you! I find it so hard being a 24 year old, stuck right in the middle of the techno-boom and feeling empty about the biggest passion in my life. That speech at the end of your video spoke right to my soul. It is so crushing trying to make a name for yourself in this time when everyone has really nice cameras like mine and they all claim to be a photographer, without having any knowledge of photography. My work and confidence are forgotten and swept under the rug. Your words are exactly what I needed to hear. Thank you for making this video! With all my heart! :)
After doing digital photography for some years I only recently ventured into film and I have learned SO MUCH from your channel. Thank you ! I love your presentation and unpretentious nature.
All I can say is that you nailed it :-) I'm just starting analog photography. I developed my first two films (by using your tips from your other videos) and now I'm searching for an enlarger to build my own darkroom. It is so much fun and the only way I can describe it is that, while watching my negatives hanging out to dry, I can actually touch and feel my photos :-) That feeling, phyisically holding my photo's that I have made is so rewarding for me. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I love wathing them. With kind regards, Dennis, The Netherlands
Ted, I loved the ending about the essence of darkroom printing and printing overall as a way of testing, learning and finding your way in the photography world. A statement very much necessary for all of us who are maybe somewhat bewildered at the start of our journeys and thinking 'what the... am I really doing here?' type stuff. I think you nailed it on the head and it's very encouraging to hear someone with plenty of experience and a broader viewpoint to put it into words like that. Really enjoy your videos! Keep up the great work! Cheers.
Hi Ted I recently got a Nikon F5 and love it! It really is an incredible piece of machinery that is much more advanced than my first digital camera, a Nikon D3300. Now I am stepping into the world of film processing and your video series is great for someone of my level of knowledge. I have a friend with equipment to do darkroom development and I am about to delve into that world. This video series has helped me a lot in terms of understanding the purpose of the equipment and how to correctly implement it in my creative process. I really enjoyed this series and learned quite a bit from the fact that you really showed step by step how and why the equipment works. I know this video is a bit old but film is always relevant as I have recently learned. Love your content, keep it up! P.S. I am just north of you in Denton. Always nice to see a TH-camr I enjoy who is not only in my state but within an hour of my hometown!
I've been following you for several years now, and this was definitely one of your best videos. I'm embarrassed to say I never print my images. Ever. And I know that's not good. Hopefully between your message here and my husband bugging me, I'll finally print something! Thanks for taking the time to make & share this with us.
Fantastic episode, Ted! Not only was this excellent information but very thought provoking. I especially enjoy the viewpoint you share about the importance of printing one's work and how it seems so few photographers do this. The feeling of seeing your own work physically printed (especially large and hanging on a wall) is something that a digital file can never achieve.
Awesome series, Ted - you are the best! Can't wait to see more darkroom videos from you. There's something awesome about watching you make prints with your hands - you explain it, and take us through it more thoroughly than anyone else out there. Thanks for constantly putting in so much effort to make even more great videos. Long-term fan!
I liked the low contrast image for the lily darkroom print. I'm usually a high contrast person but the low contrast made it seem more high key and innocent looking
Thank you for this. I know it's not new, but I'm trying to come back after wrongfully psyching myself out of my passion for photography, and as others have said your closing was the smack I needed to wake up.
I absolutely LOVE this series of analog vs digital and watching your process. I love film, it's my artistic outlet I enjoy the whole process, the tactile nature of the developing and printing as well as the need to slow down and think my way through a shot from composition to printing. Thanks for the great videos!
Have you ever tried Foma papers? When Agfa died, I switched to Foma and Fotokemika (which died too). Foma has a beautiful Lustre warm tone paper warmer than Ilford, and I also use LPD developer.
On your point about posting to social media, I have largely stopped posting my shots mainly due to the fact that I am getting little to no feedback, on Flickr for example I am getting maybe 20-30 faves (with no comments at all) on a shot which I believe is stunning. I have come to the point where I am taking shots for me and if the world at large are not impressed with them, then that is their loss. Don't get me wrong I would love to get more feedback on my shots but it got to the point where I was getting annoyed that I wasn't getting more favourites on my shots. I now post the odd shot on 500px but have not posted on Flickr since I made this (recent) decision.
I'm a musician/composer and I keep 90% of my work to myself. I have the same philosophy as yourself regarding my art but in addition, I got a few bad experiences with plagiarism. So I of course got to work on copyrighting my work.
It would be way easy to get the darkroom prints to have a much more similar tonality compared to the digital prints. You can use bleach selectively with a paint brush or Q-tips. Use running water to wash immediately and then re-fix. Simple dodging and burning would have helped too. There is no reason why a darkroom print should be softer than a digital print, unless the digital image has been sharpened digitally a lot.
It could also depend on the enlarger? I rarely had issues with flat prints, especially since we were taught to use filters from the jump. It was rare that a contrast filter wasn't used on the enlarger, and as long as you set ip up right, and did your contact sheets properly, you would have few problems with going back to do more exposures. I also don't remember having issues with paper curling. Most of my negatives were under exposed anyway, with film speed rarely, if ever, over 400. And we also developed our own negatives too. But this was back in the mid 2000's with some good quality school equipment. I miss those days, but digital is so much easier.
I'm doing this for my freshman Photography pre- AP class, and it is so much fun! My first picture came out perfect! We use D-76 to develop our films and we use some orange acid in our darkroom to develop the picture on the photo paper.
Also, I appreciate the candor and realism at the end - especially on espousing some of the beneficial aspects of printing. I do absolutely hear where you're coming from with regards to the general state of affairs of photography these days. I generally refer to it as the "cheapening" of photography based on the sheer glut of images being pumped out. At a certain point there's just too much noise to signal to even attempt to find the gems. I do have good luck with 100% film photographers tho.
When you make enlargements do you take note of the settings you used on the back of your prints, for future use? Or do you just make a few enlargements at a time and re-run test strips if you want to make enlargements in the future?
I love that we have both digital and analog....my brother in law gave me his Cannon AE-1 and I'm enjoying learning to think about what settings I'm using more.
Dianne Arbus used to put her, still curled prints into clear plastic boxes that were about 2” deep so that it showed them the way they came our of the darkroom (and that SHE made them) versus commercial prints.
Great vid, I have a darkroom and enjoy getting in there and creating art. I believe the problem with digital photography is that everyone does it. Photography seems to have no value any more, cause everyone does it. Seems now, everyone is doing these HDR images. There is some much of these images done in this treatment, it's like "Oh.. another HDR image" I believe photgraphy will come full circle and people will take notice of hand made print again. Thats my 2 cents.
Wonderfully inspiring episode Ted .... your passion and sincerity ring through ... almost every video that I have watched, I have learned something ... not just about photography but who I am as a photographer and an individual... I thank you for that!
Regarding the seeming mis match of negatives and paper aspect ratios, the standard print sizes (5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20) are all based on 19th century plates. Tradition!
I am happy to see your appreciation for the wet room process, as we old timers still get our jollies watching the image coming up in the tray. Cheers to you! There is only one thing that I must cringe about, and that is when you called Ansel,and Henri a freak of nature .:-(
Have you tried digital silver prints by a company called Digital Silver Imaging? It would be great to know your thoughts about digital photos laser exposed to BW silver halide photo paper, compared to a traditional enlarged negative. I wonder if a scanned BW negative, processed on computer, would get a similar result to a direct dodge & burned traditional enlargement.... if developed in the digital silver imaging process.
Interesting... But, 7 years on, how do you feel now? I'm not convinced by the choice of paper you used and wonder why you didn't do some split-toning to get better contrast. I'm returning to analog photography (4x5 mostly) after years in digital because I was becoming too complaisant, shooting hundreds of shots and taking the one that stands-out. Analog is making me slow-down and think - a liberating experience...
Ted, really like your videos, very informative. Do you have a video that goes from the taking of the picture (setting up "the Shot"), going through the developing and finally the darkroom printing... that would be on-spot for me personally. Please let me know i there is a chance to see that. Keep it going. Fan. - I made up my mind into finally getting into film (120) because of your no-nonsense-practical-non-traditoinal teachings. Cheers from Guatemala.
I would be highly interested in a video where you spend the right time in the darkroom to get either images to your liking. How do-able would it be to get both processes to match?
Ted, I agree completely. My percentage of "keepers" is around 5%. There are two views: 1. I take a lot of bad images; 2. I QC my work rather diligently. I don't need to tell you that the antagonists who leave thumbs-down dislikes and negative comments will quickly tell us that it is the former. :-) I love your videos. You fill a niche at TH-cam that belongs to you only. Your contribution to the collective body of knowledge is quite remarkable. Thank you.
what can you tell us about adorama prints are much more sharp? The picture with the white background seems to have a lot of tiny details that the darkroom one deosn't. best wishes. Steve
It is difficult to reduce curling on fiber based, using 4 pegs when drying after the wash with two on the bottom to weigh it down, simply framing for a while works
Excellent stuff! Thanks for reminding us the importance of printing. I too think it cannot be stressed enough how important it is for our growth as photographers. And yes, prints from the darkroom do have something special that I haven´t seen yet from inject prints. Great we have so many options today!
9 years later and it’s still on point, and more so. It’s all about enjoying the process. There is simply no doubt that even in 6x6 MF sizes, digital from capture to inkjet printing is technically superior on all measures. For most of us it’s about the journey. By the way, you should give digital wet darkroom a try. This is the digital projection onto traditional wet darkroom print media, and getting prints out that way. You get physical, old school prints while retaining all the literal Photoshop manipulation flexibility.
Thanks so much for making these videos, Ted! These shows are so resourceful and they are getting me back into shooting and developing film after a 22-year halt. I have a question.. How could I go about creating a negative film from a digital picture to use with a traditional enlarger so to develop it myself? Is that something some photographers do? It may seem to be backwards to convention as perhaps the majority would want to digitize film instead of making digital into film. I think it could be interesting experimenting doing that with photoshopped images to get a variety of results.
So the Adorama print is or is NOT an inkjet? And how closely does it actually match your scanned file as it appears on your monitor? I think you are exellent, btw. Discovered your channel only yesterday.
I'm drawn to the one on the left.. I feel you can see the light touching the center tulip...but I get why you like the right one...it has a warmer hazier look.
Please help! Where can I get analog, regular color prints done? Regular old C prints?. I'm freaking out. Can I do it at home with an enlarger? I want color prints but absolutely no digital in the process.
I don't get this. Did you not use different grades/filters for the darkroom prints? The darkroom prints are looking a bit flatter than what I'd expect. Additionally, selenium toning will drop the blacks deeper than any inkjet print could ever physically attain.
Is it possible to get the same results as AdoramaPix printing from home or in the darkroom? In the darkroom, is it possible just to change to a different paper and still get the deepness that the AdoramaPix example has? Can I do both at home? Thanks!
The photographic film (darkroom) print has 100,000,000 dots per inch (because of the number of silver coating molecules) while the digital print has 2,400 dpi (dots or pixels per inch). The film has a smooth shadow glide (transition from dark area to light area) while the digital goes in steps because of the "connecting the dots effect", which appear as "mapping" or "flaking" on the skins of the subject. This is bothersome to me. It's ok for most of others.
It is not vignetting. Look as the light gradients from cheek to neck and you'll notice the "mapping" or "flaking" because of coarse steps from light to dark. This is because there are only 64 shade steps from white to black in a digital image. In a chemical film there are infinite number of steps. Not vignetting, sir.
Odouls77 You realize you're basing all of this on a digital image right? You're watching a TH-cam video. And no, there aren't 64 steps, there are 256 steps.
Great series. Thank you! Could a better scanner help you to achieve the same depth with the digital prints that you're seeing in the darkroom prints? Episode Suggestion: "Pure digital vs. Pure Analog" - Same image/scene done with film and digital camera. One printed optically in the darkroom and the other printed through AdoramaPix.
As a B&W analog photographer, I agree about printing the work. To me THAT is the finished product. I love working in the darkroom and miss it immensely. PS - I like seeing your enlarger in the back corner on the videos.
Great video my friend. The last 9 minutes were very motivational, I'm in the process of building my darkroom and can not wait. Out of curiosity who are your heroes you mentioned?
Funny that this video showed up in my feed as I was just thinking that I needed to print some more of my work. I know what you're saying with the darkroom prints but I have been able to get that look in digital; it's just that it seems a little harder. Good lighting is [obviously] required but dodge and burn in Photoshop is what really seems to make a world of difference to get that flat image to look like it has some depth to it. Don't really see it all that well on screen, but in print... :)
Thank you for the thoughts at the end of the video. I see a reflection that comes from learning the value of this art and I appreciate it very much. I would also like to say that I see comments here that lead me to ask, "why would you say that?" Constructive criticism seems so hard to find in the photo world. To quote Teddy Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
An underexposed negative with no shadow detail used for comparison? Get a good full scale negative and print both with no manipulation for a comparison between the two. And use a paper with a neutral tone.
If you watch the other two episodes of this series, its a comparison of workflow and not really a technical comparison. Exploring manipulation is largely the point of the exercise.
The image should be printed with a higher grade contrast filter, or use split grade printing to give it better dynamic range. Second one could definitely benefit from split grade printing.
Thank you for this - this was very interesting. We appreciate it. We also just added the Fuji Deep Matte paper - this will probably give you the best "artistic" look. - Libby
Machine prints are great for processing negatives as it can analyze far faster then I can in a darkroom. That's great when working with contact sheets. After that it can't compare to all the options of paper, developers, exposer times, head adjustments etc... You have at you're disposal. Nothing beats hands on feeling it and seeing it. It allows me to explore my minds visual awareness where time stop and artistic taste are revealed. Letting some else do this robs you of that experience.
Your darkroom print would be a starting point. You need to use multi grade papers and learn how to manipulate local exposure for different elements in the image. You can print different areas at different grades. The dilution of your developer can be used to create more detail in the highlights. The grammar of black and white printing requires thinking about the image, choose your film stock because it supports what you visualised, choose format and lenses, get to the place and keep looking and thinking. Put your camera up to your eye, how does it look. How do you need to meter it and, or light it. What do you imagine as the end result? is it what you want? The picture comes to life in your mind. You decide on filters and film speed rating. Then think about developer? Do you need to increase or,decrease contrast or acutance as you develop?Then you get to look at the negatives. How will they print? Which paper? Which grade? Condenser or diffuser enlarger? Paper exposure needs consideration along with burning-in and shading. Please do an episode where you give some of your black and white negatives to a fine art printer to work on. There is a lot of work to do producing a great print. Ansel Adams and Cartier-Bresson were not freaks of nature. They just weren’t working digitally. They pre-visualised and worked towards the end result. Digital uses algorithms to create digital files. The camera and image software handle many things and the end result is nearly finished. The processes needed are hidden and the photographer falls in with what is produced almost without question. With film you are trying to bring the image together bearing in mind the limitations of the print. With digital the print is often an afterthought. If your film gives you just 9 or, 10 frames per roll you spend time getting things to work with the end result in mind. Digital lets you shoot more and more without a penalty of waste. There is magic in a 36 exposure contact sheet.
Some of you kids do not remember how Kodiak once was. You would be amazed to learn that paper came in dozens of sizes, many weights, many different grades and an almost endless number of surfaces. Now, all we have is a dying manufacturing base we will likely never get back.
Bobby Zio I agree. It's a mystery to me why he did'nt use similar papers. Or, he could have used PhotoShop to at least give the digital image a sepia tone. Kodak "F" was my favorite for a bright white and "G" had the warm look he achieved.
came across vid. saved it for later viewing. watched it. Very informative. then almost stopped watching at end of print comparison. was pleasantly surprised at the "what does photography even mean to me" tail end as I too am questioning my photographic legs, or eye. You've giving me something to think about. Conclusion? A-printing-I-shall-go!
It would have been nice if you were to use the same or similar paper as the digital prints. The paper you are using for the wet prints is very different; it's more artistic. Therefore it's very hard to compare both. Anyhow, interesting video!
I would add. I started with a darkroom in my closet which was 3'Dx8'Wx6'H with a roll of black sheet plastic and magnets and duct tape in 1980 but it worked. I would have used a cardboard box before waiting inline for lab time! I wouldn't trace the experience for any digital camera made today. I would buy a pin hole 8"x10" and Ilford film and paper before giving it up. Nothing beats that smell of chemicals and stained clothing.
Aren't you really just comparing warm tone vs cool tone... which make the whole darkroom vs digital variable void? Not a criticism, just asking as a beginner.
To get the paper flat you could use heat on a dry mounting machine, or use archival dry mounting tissue to adhere the photo to a 100% rag board. Then again a museum mount is to use 100% rag paper to hinge it to a 100% rag back with a 100% rag mat. It's all to guard against yellowing.
it's not to say you're a bad photographer, nor that you're a bad person, but you definitely posted a bad comment. i'll go further and say: dude, easy on the HDR, some of your pics look very fake. Ted used those 2 shots to give us the basic aspects of these 2 techinques, and we must all thank him for his effort, his time and the techings he give us for free. i'm learnig a ton from him. IMHO the calla lily picture is stunningly elegant.
Thank you! I find it so hard being a 24 year old, stuck right in the middle of the techno-boom and feeling empty about the biggest passion in my life. That speech at the end of your video spoke right to my soul. It is so crushing trying to make a name for yourself in this time when everyone has really nice cameras like mine and they all claim to be a photographer, without having any knowledge of photography. My work and confidence are forgotten and swept under the rug. Your words are exactly what I needed to hear. Thank you for making this video! With all my heart! :)
just give yourself 10 more years and make sure you don't get distracted in the meantime and stay focused ;)
How's it going for you now 7 years on?
Here we are, 7 years later, watching this video.
Your videos are timeless, Ted.
Thank you for making "things that matter"!
Ted, you're a great teacher! And, you're well spoken on this subject matter. Please keep these thoughtful videos coming! Thanks!
After doing digital photography for some years I only recently ventured into film and I have learned SO MUCH from your channel. Thank you ! I love your presentation and unpretentious nature.
All I can say is that you nailed it :-) I'm just starting analog photography. I developed my first two films (by using your tips from your other videos) and now I'm searching for an enlarger to build my own darkroom. It is so much fun and the only way I can describe it is that, while watching my negatives hanging out to dry, I can actually touch and feel my photos :-) That feeling, phyisically holding my photo's that I have made is so rewarding for me. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I love wathing them. With kind regards, Dennis, The Netherlands
Ted, I loved the ending about the essence of darkroom printing and printing overall as a way of testing, learning and finding your way in the photography world. A statement very much necessary for all of us who are maybe somewhat bewildered at the start of our journeys and thinking 'what the... am I really doing here?' type stuff. I think you nailed it on the head and it's very encouraging to hear someone with plenty of experience and a broader viewpoint to put it into words like that. Really enjoy your videos! Keep up the great work! Cheers.
Hi Ted I recently got a Nikon F5 and love it! It really is an incredible piece of machinery that is much more advanced than my first digital camera, a Nikon D3300. Now I am stepping into the world of film processing and your video series is great for someone of my level of knowledge. I have a friend with equipment to do darkroom development and I am about to delve into that world. This video series has helped me a lot in terms of understanding the purpose of the equipment and how to correctly implement it in my creative process. I really enjoyed this series and learned quite a bit from the fact that you really showed step by step how and why the equipment works. I know this video is a bit old but film is always relevant as I have recently learned. Love your content, keep it up! P.S. I am just north of you in Denton. Always nice to see a TH-camr I enjoy who is not only in my state but within an hour of my hometown!
I've been following you for several years now, and this was definitely one of your best videos. I'm embarrassed to say I never print my images. Ever. And I know that's not good. Hopefully between your message here and my husband bugging me, I'll finally print something!
Thanks for taking the time to make & share this with us.
Fantastic episode, Ted! Not only was this excellent information but very thought provoking. I especially enjoy the viewpoint you share about the importance of printing one's work and how it seems so few photographers do this. The feeling of seeing your own work physically printed (especially large and hanging on a wall) is something that a digital file can never achieve.
Awesome series, Ted - you are the best! Can't wait to see more darkroom videos from you. There's something awesome about watching you make prints with your hands - you explain it, and take us through it more thoroughly than anyone else out there. Thanks for constantly putting in so much effort to make even more great videos. Long-term fan!
Brilliant video as usual, with an inspiring and poignant summary. This is far and away my favourite series on youtube.
I liked the low contrast image for the lily darkroom print. I'm usually a high contrast person but the low contrast made it seem more high key and innocent looking
Thank you for this. I know it's not new, but I'm trying to come back after wrongfully psyching myself out of my passion for photography, and as others have said your closing was the smack I needed to wake up.
I absolutely LOVE this series of analog vs digital and watching your process. I love film, it's my artistic outlet I enjoy the whole process, the tactile nature of the developing and printing as well as the need to slow down and think my way through a shot from composition to printing. Thanks for the great videos!
The content of your videos is of such quality Ted, I would see them as the leading point of photography talk on the Internet.
your speech & thoughts at the end, really helped me out today. Just found your channel, & I am hooked!
Have you ever tried Foma papers? When Agfa died, I switched to Foma and Fotokemika (which died too). Foma has a beautiful Lustre warm tone paper warmer than Ilford, and I also use LPD developer.
On your point about posting to social media, I have largely stopped posting my shots mainly due to the fact that I am getting little to no feedback, on Flickr for example I am getting maybe 20-30 faves (with no comments at all) on a shot which I believe is stunning. I have come to the point where I am taking shots for me and if the world at large are not impressed with them, then that is their loss. Don't get me wrong I would love to get more feedback on my shots but it got to the point where I was getting annoyed that I wasn't getting more favourites on my shots. I now post the odd shot on 500px but have not posted on Flickr since I made this (recent) decision.
+Kai Dean upload on Google +. Find some photography based communities. And ask for feedback on your photos, you will receive help.
I'm a musician/composer and I keep 90% of my work to myself. I have the same philosophy as yourself regarding my art but in addition, I got a few bad experiences with plagiarism. So I of course got to work on copyrighting my work.
Kai Dean i suggest tumblr
reddit has a lot of great communities for sharing photos. Analog, digital, photog, photocritique, brand based groups, you name it
I've watched all the episodes of this great show, and this is probably my favourite mini series. Thanks Ted.
It would be way easy to get the darkroom prints to have a much more similar tonality compared to the digital prints. You can use bleach selectively with a paint brush or Q-tips. Use running water to wash immediately and then re-fix.
Simple dodging and burning would have helped too.
There is no reason why a darkroom print should be softer than a digital print, unless the digital image has been sharpened digitally a lot.
It could also depend on the enlarger? I rarely had issues with flat prints, especially since we were taught to use filters from the jump. It was rare that a contrast filter wasn't used on the enlarger, and as long as you set ip up right, and did your contact sheets properly, you would have few problems with going back to do more exposures.
I also don't remember having issues with paper curling.
Most of my negatives were under exposed anyway, with film speed rarely, if ever, over 400. And we also developed our own negatives too. But this was back in the mid 2000's with some good quality school equipment.
I miss those days, but digital is so much easier.
I'm doing this for my freshman Photography pre- AP class, and it is so much fun! My first picture came out perfect! We use D-76 to develop our films and we use some orange acid in our darkroom to develop the picture on the photo paper.
YAY Great as always Ted. Been on the edge of my computer waiting for this episode. Thank you for the amazing work and dedication.
Also, I appreciate the candor and realism at the end - especially on espousing some of the beneficial aspects of printing.
I do absolutely hear where you're coming from with regards to the general state of affairs of photography these days.
I generally refer to it as the "cheapening" of photography based on the sheer glut of images being pumped out. At a certain point there's just too much noise to signal to even attempt to find the gems. I do have good luck with 100% film photographers tho.
When you make enlargements do you take note of the settings you used on the back of your prints, for future use? Or do you just make a few enlargements at a time and re-run test strips if you want to make enlargements in the future?
I love that we have both digital and analog....my brother in law gave me his Cannon AE-1 and I'm enjoying learning to think about what settings I'm using more.
Dianne Arbus used to put her, still curled prints into clear plastic boxes that were about 2” deep so that it showed them the way they came our of the darkroom (and that SHE made them) versus commercial prints.
Great vid, I have a darkroom and enjoy getting in there and creating art. I believe the problem with digital photography is that everyone does it. Photography seems to have no value any more, cause everyone does it. Seems now, everyone is doing these HDR images. There is some much of these images done in this treatment, it's like "Oh.. another HDR image" I believe photgraphy will come full circle and people will take notice of hand made print again. Thats my 2 cents.
Wonderfully inspiring episode Ted .... your passion and sincerity ring through ... almost every video that I have watched, I have learned something ... not just about photography but who I am as a photographer and an individual... I thank you for that!
Regarding the seeming mis match of negatives and paper aspect ratios, the standard print sizes (5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20) are all based on 19th century plates. Tradition!
I am happy to see your appreciation for the wet room process, as we old timers still get our jollies watching the image coming up in the tray. Cheers to you!
There is only one thing that I must cringe about, and that is when you called Ansel,and Henri a freak of nature .:-(
Have you tried digital silver prints by a company called Digital Silver Imaging? It would be great to know your thoughts about digital photos laser exposed to BW silver halide photo paper, compared to a traditional enlarged negative. I wonder if a scanned BW negative, processed on computer, would get a similar result to a direct dodge & burned traditional enlargement.... if developed in the digital silver imaging process.
Interesting... But, 7 years on, how do you feel now? I'm not convinced by the choice of paper you used and wonder why you didn't do some split-toning to get better contrast.
I'm returning to analog photography (4x5 mostly) after years in digital because I was becoming too complaisant, shooting hundreds of shots and taking the one that stands-out. Analog is making me slow-down and think - a liberating experience...
Ted, really like your videos, very informative. Do you have a video that goes from the taking of the picture (setting up "the Shot"), going through the developing and finally the darkroom printing... that would be on-spot for me personally. Please let me know i there is a chance to see that. Keep it going. Fan. - I made up my mind into finally getting into film (120) because of your no-nonsense-practical-non-traditoinal teachings. Cheers from Guatemala.
Great video! On a side note, I love your white watch! Can you tell me what make it is?
The end of video was werry inspiring , thanx from Latvia.
I would be highly interested in a video where you spend the right time in the darkroom to get either images to your liking. How do-able would it be to get both processes to match?
Ted, I agree completely. My percentage of "keepers" is around 5%. There are two views: 1. I take a lot of bad images; 2. I QC my work rather diligently. I don't need to tell you that the antagonists who leave thumbs-down dislikes and negative comments will quickly tell us that it is the former. :-) I love your videos. You fill a niche at TH-cam that belongs to you only. Your contribution to the collective body of knowledge is quite remarkable. Thank you.
what can you tell us about adorama prints are much more sharp?
The picture with the white background seems to have a lot of tiny details that the darkroom one deosn't.
best wishes.
Steve
12:43 is pure gold. Thanks,
It is difficult to reduce curling on fiber based, using 4 pegs when drying after the wash with two on the bottom to weigh it down, simply framing for a while works
Excellent stuff! Thanks for reminding us the importance of printing. I too think it cannot be stressed enough how important it is for our growth as photographers. And yes, prints from the darkroom do have something special that I haven´t seen yet from inject prints. Great we have so many options today!
9 years later and it’s still on point, and more so. It’s all about enjoying the process. There is simply no doubt that even in 6x6 MF sizes, digital from capture to inkjet printing is technically superior on all measures. For most of us it’s about the journey.
By the way, you should give digital wet darkroom a try. This is the digital projection onto traditional wet darkroom print media, and getting prints out that way. You get physical, old school prints while retaining all the literal Photoshop manipulation flexibility.
I loved what you said from about 13:19 onward in this video. It's important to hear. Thanks for saying it!
Thanks so much for making these videos, Ted! These shows are so resourceful and they are getting me back into shooting and developing film after a 22-year halt. I have a question.. How could I go about creating a negative film from a digital picture to use with a traditional enlarger so to develop it myself? Is that something some photographers do? It may seem to be backwards to convention as perhaps the majority would want to digitize film instead of making digital into film. I think it could be interesting experimenting doing that with photoshopped images to get a variety of results.
So the Adorama print is or is NOT an inkjet? And how closely does it actually match your scanned file as it appears on your monitor? I think you are exellent, btw. Discovered your channel only yesterday.
I'm drawn to the one on the left.. I feel you can see the light touching the center tulip...but I get why you like the right one...it has a warmer hazier look.
Please help! Where can I get analog, regular color prints done? Regular old C prints?. I'm freaking out. Can I do it at home with an enlarger? I want color prints but absolutely no digital in the process.
Thanks DrBoschenzky - you are too kind…Glad you're developing your own work! Can't wait to see the results!
Wow .... I loved the last ten minutes of this . Thank you Ted .
I don't get this. Did you not use different grades/filters for the darkroom prints? The darkroom prints are looking a bit flatter than what I'd expect. Additionally, selenium toning will drop the blacks deeper than any inkjet print could ever physically attain.
What brand of glasses are you wearing?
Is it possible to get the same results as AdoramaPix printing from home or in the darkroom? In the darkroom, is it possible just to change to a different paper and still get the deepness that the AdoramaPix example has? Can I do both at home? Thanks!
The low contrast print of the lily is perfect. It attunes with the fragility and soft shape of the flower.
The photographic film (darkroom) print has 100,000,000 dots per inch (because of the number of silver coating molecules) while the digital print has 2,400 dpi (dots or pixels per inch). The film has a smooth shadow glide (transition from dark area to light area) while the digital goes in steps because of the "connecting the dots effect", which appear as "mapping" or "flaking" on the skins of the subject. This is bothersome to me. It's ok for most of others.
+Odouls77 The only problem is that at a normal viewing distance, the human eye can't see the difference.
It bothers me, specially the rough shadow gradient.
Odouls77 Well, you were commenting on the resolution of digital scanning. His vignetting choice has nothing to do with it.
It is not vignetting. Look as the light gradients from cheek to neck and you'll notice the "mapping" or "flaking" because of coarse steps from light to dark. This is because there are only 64 shade steps from white to black in a digital image. In a chemical film there are infinite number of steps. Not vignetting, sir.
Odouls77 You realize you're basing all of this on a digital image right? You're watching a TH-cam video.
And no, there aren't 64 steps, there are 256 steps.
Great set a videos on producing photos. It was exactly what I needed to see before I delve into darkroom.
Great series. Thank you! Could a better scanner help you to achieve the same depth with the digital prints that you're seeing in the darkroom prints? Episode Suggestion: "Pure digital vs. Pure Analog" - Same image/scene done with film and digital camera. One printed optically in the darkroom and the other printed through AdoramaPix.
I'm fairly new to shooting seriously... your vids are really helping me to make some informed choices...thanks so much :)
Such a powerful message to treasure. Thank you Sir Ted :)
Very nice mini series, refresh my taste for analogue process :)
As a B&W analog photographer, I agree about printing the work. To me THAT is the finished product. I love working in the darkroom and miss it immensely. PS - I like seeing your enlarger in the back corner on the videos.
Great video my friend. The last 9 minutes were very motivational, I'm in the process of building my darkroom and can not wait. Out of curiosity who are your heroes you mentioned?
Funny that this video showed up in my feed as I was just thinking that I needed to print some more of my work.
I know what you're saying with the darkroom prints but I have been able to get that look in digital; it's just that it seems a little harder. Good lighting is [obviously] required but dodge and burn in Photoshop is what really seems to make a world of difference to get that flat image to look like it has some depth to it. Don't really see it all that well on screen, but in print... :)
To my eye there is a subtlety and depth in the darkroom prints that are not in the Adorama pix. I would choose the warmer prints...
Thank you for the thoughts at the end of the video. I see a reflection that comes from learning the value of this art and I appreciate it very much.
I would also like to say that I see comments here that lead me to ask, "why would you say that?" Constructive criticism seems so hard to find in the photo world. To quote Teddy Roosevelt:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Love what you are doing in TH-cam!
I learning a lot from you're videos. I thing you make a great job. Thank you very much! Waiting impatiently for new stuff!
Ad for adoramapix ?
The digital prints looked as though they had a slight magentic (yes magenta) hue to them.
ePop
An underexposed negative with no shadow detail used for comparison? Get a good full scale negative and print both with no manipulation for a comparison between the two. And use a paper with a neutral tone.
If you watch the other two episodes of this series, its a comparison of workflow and not really a technical comparison. Exploring manipulation is largely the point of the exercise.
Thanks! This was a really interesting series and you are a really good speaker!
The image should be printed with a higher grade contrast filter, or use split grade printing to give it better dynamic range. Second one could definitely benefit from split grade printing.
Love the long exposure Lilly much more than the "textbook style" adorama version.
I like your energy and love for photography!
Thank you for this - this was very interesting. We appreciate it. We also just added the Fuji Deep Matte paper - this will probably give you the best "artistic" look. - Libby
Machine prints are great for processing negatives as it can analyze far faster then I can in a darkroom. That's great when working with contact sheets. After that it can't compare to all the options of paper, developers, exposer times, head adjustments etc... You have at you're disposal. Nothing beats hands on feeling it and seeing it. It allows me to explore my minds visual awareness where time stop and artistic taste are revealed. Letting some else do this robs you of that experience.
Your darkroom print would be a starting point. You need to use multi grade papers and learn how to manipulate local exposure for different elements in the image. You can print different areas at different grades. The dilution of your developer can be used to create more detail in the highlights. The grammar of black and white printing requires thinking about the image, choose your film stock because it supports what you visualised, choose format and lenses, get to the place and keep looking and thinking. Put your camera up to your eye, how does it look. How do you need to meter it and, or light it. What do you imagine as the end result? is it what you want? The picture comes to life in your mind. You decide on filters and film speed rating. Then think about developer? Do you need to increase or,decrease contrast or acutance as you develop?Then you get to look at the negatives. How will they print? Which paper? Which grade? Condenser or diffuser enlarger? Paper exposure needs consideration along with burning-in and shading.
Please do an episode where you give some of your black and white negatives to a fine art printer to work on. There is a lot of work to do producing a great print.
Ansel Adams and Cartier-Bresson were not freaks of nature. They just weren’t working digitally. They pre-visualised and worked towards the end result. Digital uses algorithms to create digital files. The camera and image software handle many things and the end result is nearly finished. The processes needed are hidden and the photographer falls in with what is produced almost without question. With film you are trying to bring the image together bearing in mind the limitations of the print. With digital the print is often an afterthought. If your film gives you just 9 or, 10 frames per roll you spend time getting things to work with the end result in mind. Digital lets you shoot more and more without a penalty of waste. There is magic in a 36 exposure contact sheet.
Some of you kids do not remember how Kodiak once was. You would be amazed to learn that paper came in dozens of sizes, many weights, many different grades and an almost endless number of surfaces. Now, all we have is a dying manufacturing base we will likely never get back.
Kodak, not Kodiak.
Bobby Zio I agree. It's a mystery to me why he did'nt use similar papers. Or, he could have used PhotoShop to at least give the digital image a sepia tone. Kodak "F" was my favorite for a bright white and "G" had the warm look he achieved.
came across vid. saved it for later viewing. watched it. Very informative. then almost stopped watching at end of print comparison. was pleasantly surprised at the "what does photography even mean to me" tail end as I too am questioning my photographic legs, or eye. You've giving me something to think about. Conclusion? A-printing-I-shall-go!
It would have been nice if you were to use the same or similar paper as the digital prints. The paper you are using for the wet prints is very different; it's more artistic. Therefore it's very hard to compare both. Anyhow, interesting video!
Thank you for theses greats videos. They are so informative and so inspirational.
Do you have an Adoramapix referral number?
Well said in your the closing remarks
Did you ever go back into the darkroom and reprint these images?
I would add. I started with a darkroom in my closet which was 3'Dx8'Wx6'H with a roll of black sheet plastic and magnets and duct tape in 1980 but it worked. I would have used a cardboard box before waiting inline for lab time! I wouldn't trace the experience for any digital camera made today. I would buy a pin hole 8"x10" and Ilford film and paper before giving it up. Nothing beats that smell of chemicals and stained clothing.
You're a brave man Erick… thanks ;-)
This is the best photography-channel on youtube and you got a way too less views....that tells a lot about photographers these days. No depth
Aren't you really just comparing warm tone vs cool tone... which make the whole darkroom vs digital variable void? Not a criticism, just asking as a beginner.
To get the paper flat you could use heat on a dry mounting machine, or use archival dry mounting tissue to adhere the photo to a 100% rag board. Then again a museum mount is to use 100% rag paper to hinge it to a 100% rag back with a 100% rag mat. It's all to guard against yellowing.
I used a large Kodak print flattening machine. Belts pulled prints through a set of rollers and a steam bath. The result was perfectly flat prints.
Great video ---even though I won't be developing really enjoyed the comparison.
One of channels i actually run full-screen when watching.
Yeah, why can one not make a global "like" of all episodes at once:) This is great!
I like that the dark room pictures almost look like they were painted on the paper.
it's not to say you're a bad photographer, nor that you're a bad person, but you definitely posted a bad comment. i'll go further and say: dude, easy on the HDR, some of your pics look very fake. Ted used those 2 shots to give us the basic aspects of these 2 techinques, and we must all thank him for his effort, his time and the techings he give us for free. i'm learnig a ton from him. IMHO the calla lily picture is stunningly elegant.
You can just use a heat press to flatten the prints
i always want more apertura
Thank you very much for this words, i mean the last part of the video.
Outstanding videos, thanks!
You can just use your hands and other crap to adjust exposure in spots in the darkroom
thanks for this ted. great video
You are an inspiring person, thanks