Digital BW, The Print

Martin,

I tried and tried to get some sort of acceptable B&W prints from D30 image
files that I felt would benefit from a grayscale presentation. I used
Channel Mixer, I used the B&W conversion tools available via Pixel Genius's
Photokit, I tried the B&W Pro conversion tool from Imaging Factory, I tried
Fred Miranda's conversion actions, etc. Not one sang for me. Not one even
compared to my digital quads from 4x5/8x10 neg scans; let alone compared to
finely crafted silver print. I finally concluded that either it just can't
be done or I don't currently possess the skill level to make it happen.
Perhaps you're right that I 30 megapixel direct capture could, at least,
come close to film.

BTW, I'm sorry I started the whole film vs. digital thread...that was
certainly not my intention. I shoot film and digital and enjoy the print
results from both. Just for interest sake, I did experiment with
downsampling my 35mm Tango drum scan and generated several prints from the
film scan and digital. The film scan result was nice, but, for the subject
at hand, I thought the digital print was more pleasing to look at. Was the
digital print "better?" Who cares...I liked what I saw. This was color
though..........

Sorry, to bring this back on topic...I agree with other comments that I've
seen posted here...I don't believe we should think of digitally produced B&W
to be better than silver prints created via traditional means, or
vice-versa. They are different "animals" and have their own inherent beauty.
I have labored in the wet darkroom for 25+ years producing nothing but B&W;
mostly from LF negs. For the past few years, I've been working through the
computer producing quadtones via MIS VM inks and Paul's curves. Don't have a
wet darkroom set up. But...I miss it! Sure, I have much more control over
the process working in PS. I'd like to think that I've produced a couple of
nice prints...at least one that I can think of just could not have been
produced in the wet darkroom. I have A4 size images hanging on my living
room wall that I also have the identical image (approx 11x14) in silver. The
quad prints have that almost platinum look to them where the image appears
to be part of the paper...the near whites/grays/blacks in the selenium-toned
silver print simply sing. Both presentations are very nice, but totally
different.

Personally...to borrow a few words from the great Edward Weston...I don't
care if an image in printed on a bath mat as long as it's a good print and,
more importantly, has something to say. I see a lot of technically great
photographs that contain absolutely NO heart! But, that's a subject probably
best left alone.

Thanks for the camaraderie,
Alan Huntley

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital, film, scanning comparisons


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A. Huntley" <leicam6@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 6:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital, film, scanning comparisons
>
>
> > Martin,
> >
> > Very interesting and informative site. Thank you.
> >
> > Alan Huntley
>
> Alan,
>
> Glad someone found it of use. Unfortunately he (nor do any of the endless
> threads here) does not address the basic issue of what happens when you
try
> to print in B&W. All of the files and examples he shows are presumably 3
> channel RGB. I am unclined to agree with his 10 megapixal threshold being
> the point where direct digital cature equals or exceeds 35mm color film
but
> what about B&W? Since the conversion to B&W drops 2/3 of the data the
> implication is that to match 35mm B&W you would need 30 megapixal direct
> capture.
>
> Martin Wesley