… By comparison, the smell of fixer seems entirely tolerable (and odourless fixer is available).
My guess is that the odourless stuff is for those who have to convert their bathroom and the rest of the family don't want to mix perfumes
In this digital/wet debate, everything that everybody says holds an element of truth, but in creative work (we do think we're creative, don't we?) personal preferences are important.
Absolutely!
I don't think anyone under estimates the work needed to make high quality scan and subsequent Inkjet print. However steps on a computer are reversible and a lot of experimenting can be done without incurring material costs.
Not always. Helen is very particular about how her prints look. Not being particularly tech savvy, she will stand behind me, issuing edicts as to how to dodge, burn or change the contrast of a part of the image.
Sometimes, even after she deems herself satisfied with the image on screen, we will print it, leave it to dry and, upon re-examining it in the cold light of day, will end up going back to Photoshop to correct some part or another and doing another print.
As you have mentioned, there really isn't that much difference in cost.
Darkroom printing is definitely more challenging, it becomes easier with experience to the point of being second nature, actaulayy subsequently scanning to make prints becomes very easy with darkroom experience. This is why almost all Photo degree course have re-installed darkrooms and require students to learn to print again.
I learned the basics of darkroom printing nearly fifty years ago. Without that, I think I would not have the same skills for the digital side of things.
There's nothing archaic in making silver gelatin prints, using glass plate, alternative processes etc. It's not for everyone but that has to be respected for those that do.
Indeed. My beef in some conversations I have had, is that some "wetties" come across as having the opinion that, if it's digital, it can never be as good as silver gelatine. Thankfully, Ilford have given the lie to that assumption
One option which a friend who had no darkroom used was shoot LF, scan, make digital negatives and Platinum/Palladium print. Edwin Land predicted the hybridisation and Analog/Digital crossovers over 30 years ago, I have a Platinum print made from a digital camera file. We all choose our routes individually.
I think that is an excellent idea.
I teach at our local photo club and find that getting people to set up their digital cameras is far harder than teaching LF. All those interminable menus, together with the assumption that, if you leave it in automatic, the camera will produce good pictures. What's more, you shouldn't need to do any post processing
In the end, it is all down to "what turns you on". Somewhere in the back of my head, I would love to go back to a non-digital approach but, honestly, after so many years of hybrid work, I find that I prefer sitting at a screen to faffing around in a darkroom. Which more than likely makes me just a little bit weird
Oh, and I never could get the hang of spotting prints