Let me state right up front that I love the prints I make with Arista EDU Ultra Glossy/Fomabrom Variant papers.

This is the forth and possibly last installment of a series of entries that chronicles what is turning into a love-hate relationship with these wonderful papers.

First, what I love. Printing just plain seems easier than it has ever been using other papers. Not sure why. And I love the look – neutral to slightly cool with a bright white base. Super highlights, deep blacks and fantastic shadow detail. Perhaps it also has something to do with the print developer I started using around the same time I began experimenting with these papers. That would be Photographer’s Formulary Liquidol developer. Use of the new developer began out of necessity when I finally used up the last bag of my old standby Zone VI developer. As previously mentioned Liquidol is said to be a replacement for that fine product. As the name implies it’s a liquid concentrate that mixes 1 part to 9 parts water and develops most papers in roughly 1 minute. I am now completely happy with the developer and it’s my standard. And here’s a plug – I can’t say enough about Photographer’s Formulary. They really care about analog black and white photography … and their customers! I recently received a bottle of Liquidol that had begun to leak in its shipping box. I called the company and a replacement was quickly shipped and delivered to me, no questions asked! We photographers need to support companies like Photographer’s Formulary that produce great products and stand behind them.

Ok, now what I don’t like. I have gone through several hundred sheets of these two papers. Perhaps I have just had some particularly bad luck with the batches I have received. In some cases I have had cases where the emulsion starts to peel from the edges during development. At other times this annoying problem occurs when the paper hits the selenium toner. I tend to tone only when I have a lot of prints. My procedure is to develop, stop, fix, rinse, wash, dry, then store. My next step is to gather the prints I want to tone, then do a water pre-soak, fix again with pure hypo, selenium tone, hypo clear and do a final wash prior to drying. As with my last go around I reported on earlier I experienced some serious peeling of the emulsion at the edges of the paper.

But wait, there’s more! In some cases when developing prints I have noticed what looks like small scratches in the print surface. Perhaps the emulsion is extremely delicate and easily scratched by fingernails, etc., or it comes this way from the manufacturer. I don’t know and can’t figure it out #@$$#%^!

Here’s what I do know. It’s frustrating, not to mention troublesome when you spend $100 (Arista Foma rebranded) or $128 (Fomabrom) for a one hundred-sheet box of 8×10 paper and have to deal with these problems. On the other I hand I enjoy printing with the stuff (mostly) and am captivated by the results I get. Yes I know … I probably wouldn’t have these issues with Ilford products, but what am I supposed to do? It’s like being hopelessly in love with someone who has issues. There’s no choice … you just can’t let her/him go.

That is the title of an article by Russell Hart, which appeared in American Photo Magazine on February 1, 2016. It’s an interesting piece about whether colleges are still maintaining traditional black and white darkrooms and teaching students how to use them, or not bothering and just focusing on digital capture and processes. The article opens by saying that “Reports of the death of analog photography have been greatly exaggerated. In the consumer world, film may have been sunk by digital technology, but wet black-and-white darkroom photography is alive and well in academia.”

I’m not so sure I would agree with his last point about the “consumer world” as it appears film has made a nice comeback recently; in many cases led by the young! On the other hand, I would agree that when it comes to commercial photography, digital absolutely reigns supreme and it is unlikely there would ever be a chance of turning that back. Blake Madden, who heads the photo program at McDowell Technical in Marion, North Carolina, supports this. “We discussed the issue at length, but given that the world of commercial photography was going almost exclusively digital, we thought it was in the best interest of our students. He points out that he has just two years to prepare his students for possible careers in photography, and that having to teach the mechanics of traditional approaches might impede that.” Not sure I would agree with that last point either.

Maxine Payne, who heads the photography department at Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas, “sees traditional black-and-white as the only true path in a liberal arts setting. She uses it to disabuse new students of the notion that they are already photographers.” Now that is an interesting point! She goes on to say “what that often means is that they’ve taken pictures with their phones and put them on social media, or gotten them into a high-school yearbook or art show,” she says. “Rarely have they printed those pictures on anything more than a home printer. They also have no sense of failure, because they can shoot as much as they want and just delete what they don’t like—or use an app that corrects and often changes the original image to fit preconceived notions, usually from popular culture, about what makes a good photograph.”

Craig Stevens, professor of photography at Georgia’s Savannah College of Art and Design agrees. “Digital technology is so good that it creates an automatic acceptance of the end product, as is, he explains. Using black-and-white film defies that notion. Students must consider exposure, development, and how technical choices combine with aesthetic decisions to affect the final image, he says. It forces students who have grown up in the fast-and-furious world of digital to slow down.”

Finally, Professor Payne believes that traditional methods make “students think harder about their own photography; … that the benefit of learning darkroom photography is relevant to other aspects of their academic and personal lives as well. They learn that an investment of time in anything they do yields greater understanding and appreciation, and ultimately skill.”

I agree wholeheartedly with these educators, but I feel what they are saying should not be limited to the learning experience of college students. When you take a moment to think about it, everyone is really a student. Especially when it comes to something like photography. We should always be trying to learn … what to do and what not to do and when to do it and when not to. Learning to see better and realizing what really isn’t all that interesting after all. Exposure, composition, light. I could go on.

The article points out that not all educators agree. Some feel that given today’s photographic world, it’s best that a college student’s schooling be a digital one.

I know that the hard work that comes from making film based images and then printing them in the darkroom forces me to continually think hard and endeavor to improve. What am I doing right, and of course what have I done wrong? After more that 45 years at it I still make plenty of mistakes, but I think … and hope … I learn a lot more. And that’s both exciting and rewarding!

So getting back to the original question “Is Darkroom Photography Still Relevant? Of course it is! Not only for college students … but also for any student of photographic craft … or for that matter … of life.