Digital BW, The Print

I had no trouble at all getting where you were going..

j
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: E.Neilsen 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:43 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality


    
  Thanks for understanding my piss poor typing from yesterday jimbo. 

  Eric Neilsen
  Eric Neilsen Photography
  4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
  Dallas, TX 75226

  www.ericneilsenphotography.com
  skype me with ejprinter
  www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1
  Let's Talk Photography

  _____ 

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrjimbo
  Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:02 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality


  Jeeze what I great thread.. read it down to Ernst.. so many great little
  pieces..
  Well I'm totally immersed into digital but still shoot 6x7, 6x12, 4x5 and
  8x10.. but no chemistry prints all digital.. That will change this year as I
  want to go wonderfully backwards to P&P prints.. 
  Anyway, I think Eric's comments are critical.. You have to know where you
  want to go and the process needs to be lined up to get you there. Digital
  cameras will yield a great image say to 24 x 36 that will stand up to quite
  a bit of critique when processed properly. Their are so many pieces to talk
  about.. The image must be properly exposed.. Digital actually falls apart
  pretty quick if your exposure is off. As Eric said if you have any noise in
  an image that must be dealt with before you push pixels or your just
  stirring the pot and making it worse.. The very last thing is sharpening and
  it needs to be selectively.. I always make a sharpening mask and get rid of
  anything that is not exactly what I want sharpened. If your scanning film
  the same logic goes.. We have a couple of drum scanners and a great flat bed
  and basically have been digital from that aspect for a long time. For those
  using a flat bed ( yuk typically) jump off the curb and try wet mounting and
  a new input profile .. You will see the difference. 
  The viewing distance thing was brought up.. well that's true but if you
  comparing apples to oranges to see what is the best I stick my nose right in
  the image I don't care how big it is. If I don't do that I don't have the
  incentive to raise the bar.. but I do also engage the feel of an image from
  a proper viewing distance so I can take in it's feel. 
  In digital their is a lot to be said for the sensor size I feel.. I have a
  couple of D2x's and also D3s.. I won't toss my D2x's as their a great work
  horse for many jobs .. the pixel information in the larger pixel size is
  truly superior. Actually it often literally amazes me.. I will never shoot
  35mm film again but that is as far as that comment goes. 
  Stitching today is a true viable reality to raise the bar. It works.. We
  shoot most artwork with a betterlight but I don't have the big gun so I have
  to stitch when I get a large piece.. I honestly believe it makes sense to
  build a wall easel that index's vertically and horizontally to properly do
  multiple exposures of a piece.. Isn't that what they basically do with a
  cruise.?. That logic would really open up the use of a DSLR I feel and it's
  on my list of crazy stuff to do if I don't die first.
  Someone made a comment on a lens switch for their Nikon.. I was exposed to
  this for the first time a few months back.. Man is it true.. Nikon and Canon
  etc make good lenses but they are production pieces.. but the upgrades
  aren't cheap.
  My fingers are getting sore time to stop...:-)

  jimbo
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: flambeauriver 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:42 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality

  I have had a Canon ipF5000 printer for several years. I like its output just
  fine, including B/W. Last week I saw a good price on Ilford Galerie Gold
  Fibre Silk at B&H in the ANSI C (17"x22") size. It occurred to me I had
  never printed that large and it seemed a waste to have a printer capable of
  producing prints of that size and not using it. So I bought the paper and
  printed out some of my favorite B/W and color photos. 

  These were taken with an APS-C camera with a good zoom lens. No tripod, but
  a shutter speed near 1/1000 and f/8. ISO 800 or less. 

  The color photos are beautiful, and so are the B/W. But being the 'artist',
  I kept looking at them with a very critical eye and as always wondered
  "Could these be better?" (I have often wondered at myself when I view photos
  taken years earlier and squirreled away because they weren't good enough
  then, yet viewing them with some temporal distance wondering what I found
  wrong with them since they now look wonderful?)

  The B/W were processed with Nik Siver Efex Pro v2. I didn't use much
  adjustment. Then they were completed -- sharpening and noise reduction and
  printing-- in Lightroom 3.4. Putting my eye about 3" away from the print
  they looked mushy, like an older point and shoot digital with way too much
  noise reduction. But from viewing distance my partner thinks they are
  spectacular.

  Should I expect better detail on close examination at this large size? I
  realize there are plenty of variables here, but the basic one is ANSI C
  simply too large for an APS-C camera, even if tripod mounted, prime lens at
  best aperture, minimal processing, etc.

  I have in the past examined a number of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston large
  prints from very close up and they were SHARP. I realize they were taken
  with perhaps an 8"x10" and there is no way a small format will compete at
  that close examination. I do have both 645 and 6x7 cameras from my film days
  and wonder--if I want to print at that size, should I return to film and try
  scanning?

  Have I answered my own question? I'd really appreciate your thoughts and
  comments.

  Dan

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]