I’ve been thinking a lot again about digital black and white. The attraction of film, of course, is the beautiful prints that can be produced in a darkroom, and I haven’t come even close to being convinced that digital printing has reached the level of quality, cost, convenience and permanence offered by old fashioned black and white prints. Most digital prints I’ve seen, quite frankly, have been crap — and then they fade.

But it’s clear that the situation has changed quite a bit in the past few years.  After some reading, it looks like it’s possible to make archival, high quality black and white prints on a fairly inexpensive printer, if you’re willing to look around for the right inks. It may be possible to print good quality black and white with simple carbon pigment ink on artist watercolor paper and then hand color the prints, using the same paints I am using right now.

Hmmmmmm. That sounds interesting — especially since my favorite hand coloring paper of the old fashioned darkroom variety has long been extinct, and I still haven’t found a replacement.

What would going digital mean for me? Well, for one thing, it could reduce the amount of camera gear I own, since I now maintain both digital and film systems. I could achieve my goal of a single coherent photo system, something that has been driving me quietly crazy over the past year. And it could speed up the process of everything from taking the photos to printing them.

It would also mean more computer time, and a new process to learn and understand.

To dip a careful toe into the water, I sent off this evening  for a set of carbon pigment inks for the old Epson C88 we have had sitting around the house. I’ll run off some prints when the ink arrives and think some more about it. Epson 1400s, which can do 13×19 prints, are just $200 these days, and with a continuous ink system it looks like ink cost can be made insignificant.

Tempting, though I would miss the darkroom.

photo: Back yard, digital black and white, 2010

And, digital has obvious charms.