Digital BW, The Print

Martin,

Agreed. That is why I will never sell my LF gear no matter how good or cheap
digital gets. As you said, it's an artistic choice! No digital camera, EVER,
will give me the image control flexibility of LF, or the sheer joy of using
one. I'm getting a little "long in the tooth" to be schlepping my 8x10
around, but I continue to be mesmerized by the image on an 8x10 groundglass.
Peering through a teeny, tiny little hole just doesn't cut it sometimes!

Yes, my testing was done in color. I have scanned MF B&W negs, but only on
my Epson Expression 1680 flatbed. This hardware seems to work great for 4x5
and 8x10 film (B&W or color), but I've never really been able to get any MF
scans that sing for me. As I type this message I'm looking at an A3 size
print of the Grand Tetons done by Paul Roark that is absolutely
beautiful...MF (Bronica RF) scanned on a Nikon 8000. I guess MF really needs
a film scanner to really do it justice, but I, honestly, cannot afford one.

Agreed...the proof is in the print...I think I have some more playing to do,
for sure!

Alan Huntley

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] digital


> Alan,
>
> I think that it is largely an artistic choice at this point. (Or economic
if
> you are shooting pro!) I have seen excellent prints from digital cameras
and
> from scanned film. They have a different character though and some may
> prefer one over the other.
>
> I do most of my "serious" work with 4x5 and 6x7 film cameras but I would
be
> happy to add a Canon D10 to my 35mm Canon bodies.
>
> You don't mention it in your test below but I assume it was all done in
> color. It would be interesting to repeat this experiment shooting a medium
> speed B&W negative film (TMax 100 or FP4) and converting the camera file
to
> B&W (or shoot in B&W mode if that is an option). Finally make a print from
> both workflows and see what you get. After all the print is the real test.
I
> suspect they will both be good but not the same.
>
> Martin Wesley