Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "A. Huntley" <leicam6@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital, film, scanning comparisons


> 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.

Alan,

I have never had a chance to play around with a better quality digital for
B&W. The wife has a Canon G2 (3.1 mega pixel) for snap shots and my attempts
to get a nice print were somewhat successful if I printed very small, 3x4. I
have a handful of 13X18 B&W prints from other people done with SLR type
cameras that are excellent. So I have to say it can be done.

That said, the feel is very different from prints made from scans of 8x10
and 4x5 negs. I think it is simply a matter of how much fine detail is
recorded and can be gotten onto a piece of paper. Prints from 35mm are much
different from prints from LF too but I like work from both formats.

> 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.

As Austin said, Jerry Olson did some incredible B&W stuff using montages of
digital images that were a blend of scanned film and digital camera files.
Excellent print quality. I do know he was looking to move up to the D60 and
was on a quest for as much image data as possible.
>
> BTW, I'm sorry I started the whole film vs. digital thread...that was
> certainly not my intention.

I don't feel that it is off topic at all and is very pertinent as long as we
are discussing it in terms of how it relates to making a final B&W print.
What happened, (and not for the first time either!) was that it drifted off
into comparing film to digital with little of no mention of output and color
at that, and degenerated into the old "Yes it is. No it isn't" refrain!

> 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.

I agree with you. I have done the same thing comparing silver and inkjet
prints from the same negative. They are just different. Both renditions have
image specific strengths and weaknesses to my eye.

I do think that the last 2 or 3 years struggling with Photoshop and digital
B&W printing has made me a better printer. In the process of learning all
this I have become much more sensitive to subtle tonal refinements and
simply look much more closely at prints than I ever did before.
>
> 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.

Oh we have run that thread several times and that can be profitable if
inflammatory! The list should be about art too and not just the technical
issues.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html