Hello,
I have a Nikon F2, nice shape. I'd like to take some pictures; Nice, black and white pictures. With all the nice things good, traditional black and white pictures have. Tonal range, rich appearance, etc. I might like them to last 20-30 years. I might like to put some of those pictures on my wall. Maybe 8x12, 11x14. But there is one thing about my situation. I'm not rich. Or retired (meaning I work 55 hours/wk). Have you looked at the price of enlarger printing paper lately? Ok, many would say, process your own film and scan. Just "do it in PS", ha ha. But it's my understanding Photoshop is a "skilled trade" it takes years to learn, like freaking tool and die. Of course, I'd need a good 600.00 monitor to go along with. Do you really need Photoshop to have what I am looking for? And I don't think a DSLR would help, the images I've seen look like what they are, color images with the color taken out. Has the image industry killed my idea of just having a few nice looking B/W photos that I have taken myself in a box and one or two on my walls? Without spending .65 to 1.00 per sheet of 8x10 enlarger paper? I have a little Canon powershot A640. Maybe that's all the image industry wants me to have. I'ts a decent camera. But the dream is still there in the back of my head. Anyone with any ideas that would help me? I'd done quite a bit of planning for a traditional darkroom, until I glanced at the paper prices. Forget it.

35mm enlargers on craigslist or ebay sell for >100.00 and often come with timers, trays, lens and other goodies. Printing paper and good quality inkjet paper are not too different in price. Ink costs as much or more than darkroom chems and an ikjet that will do a good job at 8x12 will run 300.00 and an 11x14 printer will be close on to 500.00.

Your current monitor may be good enough and a good monitor can be had for 300.00 (and less). You don't need PS, gimp is free and will do a good job.

Digital tends to cost more and traditional tends to take more time and require more space.

I would suggest changing to charcol pencil on paper.

Hello,
I have a Nikon F2, nice shape. I'd like to take some pictures; Nice, black and white pictures. With all the nice things good, traditional black and white pictures have. Tonal range, rich appearance, etc. I might like them to last 20-30 years. I might like to put some of those pictures on my wall. Maybe 8x12, 11x14. But there is one thing about my situation. I'm not rich. Or retired (meaning I work 55 hours/wk). Have you looked at the price of enlarger printing paper lately? Ok, many would say, process your own film and scan. Just "do it in PS", ha ha. But it's my understanding Photoshop is a "skilled trade" it takes years to learn, like freaking tool and die. Of course, I'd need a good 600.00 monitor to go along with. Do you really need Photoshop to have what I am looking for? And I don't think a DSLR would help, the images I've seen look like what they are, color images with the color taken out. Has the image industry killed my idea of just having a few nice looking B/W photos that I have taken myself in a box and one or two on my walls? Without spending .65 to 1.00 per sheet of 8x10 enlarger paper? I have a little Canon powershot A640. Maybe that's all the image industry wants me to have. I'ts a decent camera. But the dream is still there in the back of my head. Anyone with any ideas that would help me? I'd done quite a bit of planning for a traditional darkroom, until I glanced at the paper prices. Forget it.

Actually, I do paint w/water soluble oils, I guess that's going to have to be my periodic creative outlet, not photography. Of course, the Canon is a neat camera, it does have a nice manual mode. Aren't the working class an easy target for savagery? <removed>

35mm enlargers on craigslist or ebay sell for >100.00 and often come with timers, trays, lens and other goodies. Printing paper and good quality inkjet paper are not too different in price. Ink costs as much or more than darkroom chems and an ikjet that will do a good job at 8x12 will run 300.00 and an 11x14 printer will be close on to 500.00.

Your current monitor may be good enough and a good monitor can be had for 300.00 (and less). You don't need PS, gimp is free and will do a good job.

Digital tends to cost more and traditional tends to take more time and require more space.

Yes, the enlargers are tempting, some that go for a grand retail are around three hundred. Guess it's not cheap no matter which way you go. Thanks for the help.:D

If you have a local Art Center, you should check out their darkroom. They all have/had one. Although many are being decommissioned, you might be surprised by the positive reception you receive when you express an interest, especially if the facilities have been gathering dust. Volunteer to clean it out and get it running again. There might even be have some paper and chemistry left. If you have to buy your own materials, it'll still be a bargain.

I've just taken a look at GIMP, it looks impressive and useable for a dummy like me, gee, that gets me thinking, if I traded the F2 for a D50, got a couple of prime ais lenses, and a gossen digisix, proof prints at meijers, fancy ones when I get lucky, it might work.

Actually, I do paint w/water soluble oils, I guess that's going to have to be my periodic creative outlet, not photography. Of course, the Canon is a neat camera, it does have a nice manual mode. Aren't the working class an easy target for savagery? Evangelical Republicanism, anyone?

Perhaps you should write down a clear set of photographic goals and develop a plan to achieve them ...

I've just taken a look at GIMP, it looks impressive and useable for a dummy like me, gee, that gets me thinking, if I traded the F2 for a D50, got a couple of prime ais lenses, and a gossen digisix, proof prints at meijers, fancy ones when I get lucky, it might work.

Yes, and you'll spend as much or more than the photochemical side.

It doesn't matter which route you go, or a combination of the the two; if you don't do like Mr. Bryant suggests, you are going to be throwing money down a rat hole for nothing.

Sure, you'll be able to make a work flow from that scatter shot approach to purchasing gear, but you'll more than likely waste much time and money you'd rather not, from the sound of your post...

I am very "frugal" (friends say cheap) and can make prints that size very inexpensively by buying out of date filmstock, paper and other items on an auction site and keeping my eyes open for stuff in garage sales and such.

In fact, my darkroom, chemical stocks and 35mm slr cost less than one of your proposed DSLR lenses; it just takes a bit of legwork -- no more than you will wind up doing IF you take the above route, in my opinion.

<edit>
Are you claiming to be a working class stiff and then NOT knowing how to root out a bargain? Give me a break...

Sounds like you just want an argument.

If you want to make photos, digital, photochem or a combo of the two, you can find a way -- sink or swim dude.

Well, I just purchased a Nikon D50 body off the bay, new in the box, caught one while they're a few left, the lenses and Sekonic L-308s can wait... Thanks for the help.

And charcoal and paper wasn't a cheap shot?

<removed>
To be honest, I hadn't thought about buying out-of -date materials, I guess I could have done that, but I wouldn't know good from bad, not having experience. And I guess I've gotten a lazy streak with all this research. If I'm going to do this at all I've gotten to the point that I just want it over with.
Scattershot? I hope not, there is some method to the madness, retro lenses, better made, retro look to the images, D50, less physical stress than a trad darkroom, remember, I work some hours. Yes, I have to use a meter, and most people would think it was crazy, but it keeps you connected to the process. I also ordered a Katzeye prism.
<removed>

Dampandcloudy

Not meant as a cheap shot , rather a warning that once the photographic bug takes hold it is a very , very long road and as one progresses the *want* becomes increasingly expensive.
We warn every *young* photographer that works with us about the reality of the financial costs producing show quality work.
The best suggestion is to find a group not using their darkroom and offer to bring it back alive, as well as purchasing gear, chemicals and paper is not as easy and inexpensive as one would think but possible as others point out.
There is an old saying about film and paper being the cheapest part of the photographic process, I can vouch for this.
If you are worried about these costs I'm afraid your at an big disadvantage and probably should use a digital camera ,buy an inkjet machine that is reliable and save yourself a whole can of whoopass than trying the analoque route. Your basic costs would then be the varieties of paper and the ink cartriges that go a long way.
Bob

And charcoal and paper wasn't a cheap shot?