Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Is Camera Raw enough?

Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by Lew Schwartz

I'm a bw film photographer & need to learn how to print my scanned
negs digitally. In CS4, I've discovered that if I open my scanned
tiff's in Adobe Camera Raw, I can find pretty much all the adjustments
I need (mostly exposure & contrast) to keep my street look. I then
save the adjustments, open the file in Photoshop, probably apply a
gradient & then straight to print. It seems like I'm missing a world
of Photoshop possibilities, but if I tool around too much in PS, the
shots look too studied. Is anyone else using the simplified approach?
Comments appreciated.

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by C D Tobie

On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:

> I'm a bw film photographer & need to learn how to print my scanned
> negs digitally. In CS4, I've discovered that if I open my scanned
> tiff's in Adobe Camera Raw, I can find pretty much all the adjustments
> I need (mostly exposure & contrast) to keep my street look. I then
> save the adjustments, open the file in Photoshop, probably apply a
> gradient & then straight to print. It seems like I'm missing a world
> of Photoshop possibilities, but if I tool around too much in PS, the
> shots look too studied. Is anyone else using the simplified approach?

Lightroom would be the usual tool for this, and will allow printing as  
well, so that, for your uses, Photoshop might be reserved for special  
occasions...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by Mark Savoia

Well everyone has their workflow that works for them and they think is  
the simplest and easiest. Yours is just one of the many, many ways  
with that approach. Only thing I see as an issue is why you need to do  
that much adjusting of your scanned negs? Perhaps you need to work on  
your scanner software so it gets things much closer.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:

> I'm a bw film photographer & need to learn how to print my scanned
> negs digitally. In CS4, I've discovered that if I open my scanned
> tiff's in Adobe Camera Raw, I can find pretty much all the adjustments
> I need (mostly exposure & contrast) to keep my street look. I then
> save the adjustments, open the file in Photoshop, probably apply a
> gradient & then straight to print. It seems like I'm missing a world
> of Photoshop possibilities, but if I tool around too much in PS, the
> shots look too studied. Is anyone else using the simplified approach?
> Comments appreciated.

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by Walker Blackwell

For BW, I often do raw (positive) drumscans of BW negs and inverted them in ACR. Then I import into Lightroom and do most of my global adjustments in there. I like it because it's non-destructive and faaast! (+ there is no duplicates. Just the raw scan files with non-destructive crop.)

+ It gives me a more darkroom-esque workflow and I take save all my adjustments as templates, etc. For straight photography, it works really well for me.

Just my two cents,
Walker

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by piezobw

I agree with Walker about the positive scanning of negatives - it helps eliminate the scanner manufacturer's algorithm for converting a neg to a positive. I find this the best way to get out of the film what is there, without the scanner software imposing its own idea of what is there.

I'll add a penny to his two cents...

I usually set the white point on the film base + fog, and I set the black point on fully exposed film (leader for example). This way everything that has been exposed will exist within the dMin/dMax possibilities of the film.


Jon Cone
Piezography

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Walker Blackwell <forums@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> For BW, I often do raw (positive) drumscans of BW negs and inverted them in ACR. Then I import into Lightroom and do most of my global adjustments in there. I like it because it's non-destructive and faaast! (+ there is no duplicates. Just the raw scan files with non-destructive crop.)
> 
> + It gives me a more darkroom-esque workflow and I take save all my adjustments as templates, etc. For straight photography, it works really well for me.
> 
> Just my two cents,
> Walker
>

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by Lew Schwartz

A few questions:

You scan your negs as though they were positives. I've read about this, but
there seems to be opinion both ways. What's yours?

So if saving the adjustments as a template is non-destructive, is there a
way to write the template info into files so the adjustments will be
incorporated when & if you decide to go the full PS route?

Thanks.



On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Walker Blackwell <
forums@...> wrote:

>
>
> For BW, I often do raw (positive) drumscans of BW negs and inverted them in
> ACR. Then I import into Lightroom and do most of my global adjustments in
> there. I like it because it's non-destructive and faaast! (+ there is no
> duplicates. Just the raw scan files with non-destructive crop.)
>
> + It gives me a more darkroom-esque workflow and I take save all my
> adjustments as templates, etc. For straight photography, it works really
> well for me.
>
> Just my two cents,
> Walker
>  
>


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

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by mrjimbo

I find that regardless of what I do when scanning with B&W that I make further adjustments to get the print to get the "feel" that I need .. The contrast and tonality I see on my screen typically is different when I print the job.. It's not like the image is that far off it's just the relationship of areas in the image with respect to contrast and tonality are slightly different .. enough that I need to fool with it to get teh feel back..... I'm having a hard time putting words to this. I don't honestly feel I have these same issues in color printing.. This may sound like I'm incredibly unskilled and have horrible tools .. but I find B&W printing to truly attain a level  of excellance quite complex. I would love to make it easier but have yet to really get it truly figured out.. I mean I can make a good B&W print ...but when I get an image on the screen that talks to me.. It takes a while to get the print to talk that way also.. I honestly admit I need more experience.. hopefully it'll come..

jimbo
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Savoia 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?


    
  Well everyone has their workflow that works for them and they think is 
  the simplest and easiest. Yours is just one of the many, many ways 
  with that approach. Only thing I see as an issue is why you need to do 
  that much adjusting of your scanned negs? Perhaps you need to work on 
  your scanner software so it gets things much closer.

  Mark
  http://www.stillrivereditions.com

  On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:

  > I'm a bw film photographer & need to learn how to print my scanned
  > negs digitally. In CS4, I've discovered that if I open my scanned
  > tiff's in Adobe Camera Raw, I can find pretty much all the adjustments
  > I need (mostly exposure & contrast) to keep my street look. I then
  > save the adjustments, open the file in Photoshop, probably apply a
  > gradient & then straight to print. It seems like I'm missing a world
  > of Photoshop possibilities, but if I tool around too much in PS, the
  > shots look too studied. Is anyone else using the simplified approach?
  > Comments appreciated.



  

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

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by Lew Schwartz

So you and Walker don't do any curves or adjustments except for base & dMax
on the scan side? This pretty much how we evaluate iso & development times
for film.

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:42 PM, piezobw <jon@...> wrote:

>
>
> I agree with Walker about the positive scanning of negatives - it helps
> eliminate the scanner manufacturer's algorithm for converting a neg to a
> positive. I find this the best way to get out of the film what is there,
> without the scanner software imposing its own idea of what is there.
>
> I'll add a penny to his two cents...
>
> I usually set the white point on the film base + fog, and I set the black
> point on fully exposed film (leader for example). This way everything that
> has been exposed will exist within the dMin/dMax possibilities of the film.
>
> Jon Cone
> Piezography
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Walker Blackwell <forums@...> wrote:
> >
> > For BW, I often do raw (positive) drumscans of BW negs and inverted them
> in ACR. Then I import into Lightroom and do most of my global adjustments in
> there. I like it because it's non-destructive and faaast! (+ there is no
> duplicates. Just the raw scan files with non-destructive crop.)
> >
> > + It gives me a more darkroom-esque workflow and I take save all my
> adjustments as templates, etc. For straight photography, it works really
> well for me.
> >
> > Just my two cents,
> > Walker
> >
>
>  
>


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

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by Keith

LR or ACR. Both use the same engine and have the same tools(for the most part)so it really wouldn't make any difference.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> 
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> 
> > I'm a bw film photographer & need to learn how to print my scanned
> > negs digitally. In CS4, I've discovered that if I open my scanned
> > tiff's in Adobe Camera Raw, I can find pretty much all the adjustments
> > I need (mostly exposure & contrast) to keep my street look. I then
> > save the adjustments, open the file in Photoshop, probably apply a
> > gradient & then straight to print. It seems like I'm missing a world
> > of Photoshop possibilities, but if I tool around too much in PS, the
> > shots look too studied. Is anyone else using the simplified approach?
> 
> Lightroom would be the usual tool for this, and will allow printing as  
> well, so that, for your uses, Photoshop might be reserved for special  
> occasions...
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...
> 
> 
>   ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Datacolor
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by piezobw

When I shot my own film, I determined exposure for 50% gray and would compensate with a curve to set that. When Geoff was still teaching at Cone Editions Press, he would expose and develop film with a number of 1/2 stops to create a number of densities to correct with a multipoint curve. It becomes a matter of what you are willing to accept and how far you want to go.

Hope that helps...

Jon Cone
Piezography

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Lew Schwartz <lew1716@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> So you and Walker don't do any curves or adjustments except for base & dMax
> on the scan side? This pretty much how we evaluate iso & development times
> for film.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:42 PM, piezobw <jon@...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > I agree with Walker about the positive scanning of negatives - it helps
> > eliminate the scanner manufacturer's algorithm for converting a neg to a
> > positive. I find this the best way to get out of the film what is there,
> > without the scanner software imposing its own idea of what is there.
> >
> > I'll add a penny to his two cents...
> >
> > I usually set the white point on the film base + fog, and I set the black
> > point on fully exposed film (leader for example). This way everything that
> > has been exposed will exist within the dMin/dMax possibilities of the film.
> >
> > Jon Cone
> > Piezography
> >
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Walker Blackwell <forums@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For BW, I often do raw (positive) drumscans of BW negs and inverted them
> > in ACR. Then I import into Lightroom and do most of my global adjustments in
> > there. I like it because it's non-destructive and faaast! (+ there is no
> > duplicates. Just the raw scan files with non-destructive crop.)
> > >
> > > + It gives me a more darkroom-esque workflow and I take save all my
> > adjustments as templates, etc. For straight photography, it works really
> > well for me.
> > >
> > > Just my two cents,
> > > Walker
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by C D Tobie

On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Keith wrote:

> LR or ACR. Both use the same engine and have the same tools(for the  
> most part)so it really wouldn't make any difference.

Engine is the same; workflow is drastically different.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by piezobw

probably this is obvious so don't shoot me...

but in b&w printmaking, if you spend more time looking at the print than you do at the display image, you will spend more time making evaluative judgments about what to change in the display image.

most imagers today spend 20 minutes looking at the image on the display - they can spend hours - but it takes minimum three full minutes for the brain to begin to "see" a print without the psychology imparting things that usually dissipate by concentrative looking - and yet many often make decisions in just a minute and the very important gestalt of the print goes unnoticed. 

Over the years I have watched those who come here to take workshops glance at their prints and then run back to the display to make changes...we try to slooooow them down, make them mark up the print, then spend three minutes in photoshop and twenty looking at the print, letting it sink in, playing "pre-visualization" through imagination, squinting, blocking out, using a pencil to darken something temp to see... really just photographic practices...

Jon Cone
Piezography





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> I find that regardless of what I do when scanning with B&W that I make further adjustments to get the print to get the "feel" that I need .. The contrast and tonality I see on my screen typically is different when I print the job.. It's not like the image is that far off it's just the relationship of areas in the image with respect to contrast and tonality are slightly different .. enough that I need to fool with it to get teh feel back..... I'm having a hard time putting words to this. I don't honestly feel I have these same issues in color printing.. This may sound like I'm incredibly unskilled and have horrible tools .. but I find B&W printing to truly attain a level  of excellance quite complex. I would love to make it easier but have yet to really get it truly figured out.. I mean I can make a good B&W print ...but when I get an image on the screen that talks to me.. It takes a while to get the print to talk that way also.. I honestly admit I need more experience.. hopefully it'll come..
> 
> jimbo
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Mark Savoia 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:22 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?
> 
> 
>     
>   Well everyone has their workflow that works for them and they think is 
>   the simplest and easiest. Yours is just one of the many, many ways 
>   with that approach. Only thing I see as an issue is why you need to do 
>   that much adjusting of your scanned negs? Perhaps you need to work on 
>   your scanner software so it gets things much closer.
> 
>   Mark
>   http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> 
>   On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> 
>   > I'm a bw film photographer & need to learn how to print my scanned
>   > negs digitally. In CS4, I've discovered that if I open my scanned
>   > tiff's in Adobe Camera Raw, I can find pretty much all the adjustments
>   > I need (mostly exposure & contrast) to keep my street look. I then
>   > save the adjustments, open the file in Photoshop, probably apply a
>   > gradient & then straight to print. It seems like I'm missing a world
>   > of Photoshop possibilities, but if I tool around too much in PS, the
>   > shots look too studied. Is anyone else using the simplified approach?
>   > Comments appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by Ross

I have question for Jon Cone regarding his setting the white point while scanning the negative. Forgive my ignorance of terminology, but what exactly do you mean by "film base + fog"? I've tried scanning my negatives as positives in the past and have come out with a very flat inverted image in PS requiring a lot of curves.

Thanks,

Ross

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" <jon@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> I agree with Walker about the positive scanning of negatives - it helps eliminate the scanner manufacturer's algorithm for converting a neg to a positive. I find this the best way to get out of the film what is there, without the scanner software imposing its own idea of what is there.
> 
> I'll add a penny to his two cents...
> 
> I usually set the white point on the film base + fog, and I set the black point on fully exposed film (leader for example). This way everything that has been exposed will exist within the dMin/dMax possibilities of the film.
> 
> 
> Jon Cone
> Piezography
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Walker Blackwell <forums@> wrote:
> >
> > For BW, I often do raw (positive) drumscans of BW negs and inverted them in ACR. Then I import into Lightroom and do most of my global adjustments in there. I like it because it's non-destructive and faaast! (+ there is no duplicates. Just the raw scan files with non-destructive crop.)
> > 
> > + It gives me a more darkroom-esque workflow and I take save all my adjustments as templates, etc. For straight photography, it works really well for me.
> > 
> > Just my two cents,
> > Walker
> >
>

Re: Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by piezobw

Film base plus fog would be what is referred to the clear film that is at the edge of a negative that has been developed but not exposed to light. The fog is within the actual film itself not necessarily related to silver but the type of development that has occurred in regards to the emulsion on the film.  Maybe today its referred by another name.

Negatives can scan flat when you scan them as a positive, which may be a very good thing if you wish to take control of the imaging. The scanner usually employs some algorithm that adds contrast to it when you scan as a "negative". There are some instances that scanning as a negative makes it difficult. 

Generally with Piezography, the only black that prints is L value 0. And the only white that prints (actually does not get printed) is L value 255. So some Piezographers wish to get a tremendous amount of shadow and highlight detail by taking control of the values that are at or near 0 and 255. Scanning flat permits that. In this way L value 1 is lighter than 0, and 2 lighter than 1, etc. Also in the highlights you can actually see the differences between 254, 253, 252, etc..

When an artificial contrast curve is used by the scanner - a lot of the subtlety is pressed together in those areas.

If you can scan into 16 bit, you can create a curve (hopefully you can manage with one curve though that takes practice), and get the image into shape with respect to the highlights and shadows.

If your system does not quite differentiate between the lowest and highest L values, then the curve can be a little less specific.

Hope this helps...

Jon Cone
Piezography

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ross" <rosscavanagh@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> I have question for Jon Cone regarding his setting the white point while scanning the negative. Forgive my ignorance of terminology, but what exactly do you mean by "film base + fog"? I've tried scanning my negatives as positives in the past and have come out with a very flat inverted image in PS requiring a lot of curves.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ross
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" <jon@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Walker about the positive scanning of negatives - it helps eliminate the scanner manufacturer's algorithm for converting a neg to a positive. I find this the best way to get out of the film what is there, without the scanner software imposing its own idea of what is there.
> > 
> > I'll add a penny to his two cents...
> > 
> > I usually set the white point on the film base + fog, and I set the black point on fully exposed film (leader for example). This way everything that has been exposed will exist within the dMin/dMax possibilities of the film.
> > 
> > 
> > Jon Cone
> > Piezography
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Walker Blackwell <forums@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For BW, I often do raw (positive) drumscans of BW negs and inverted them in ACR. Then I import into Lightroom and do most of my global adjustments in there. I like it because it's non-destructive and faaast! (+ there is no duplicates. Just the raw scan files with non-destructive crop.)
> > > 
> > > + It gives me a more darkroom-esque workflow and I take save all my adjustments as templates, etc. For straight photography, it works really well for me.
> > > 
> > > Just my two cents,
> > > Walker
> > >
> >
>

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by shileshjani

This is what happens to me also. I may redo an image file, generally just a simple gamma adjustment, immediately after the very first print. The decisive adjustments, however, are not made until a few days later.  I will typically take the print to shaded outdoors, examine some more under bright artificial lights, take it to work. I am a hazard on the road because I keep the print propped up near the shift control. The print just sits around for a few days barely in my conciousness, but always there, on the dining table, on my night stand. My wife does not appreciate it at all. After I have lived with it for a a few days, I start seeing nuances or possibilities thereof that I missed initially. Many times, first is the final print, but that decision only gets made after a few days.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" <jon@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> probably this is obvious so don't shoot me...
> 
> but in b&w printmaking, if you spend more time looking at the print than you do at the display image, you will spend more time making evaluative judgments about what to change in the display image.
> 
> most imagers today spend 20 minutes looking at the image on the display - they can spend hours - but it takes minimum three full minutes for the brain to begin to "see" a print without the psychology imparting things that usually dissipate by concentrative looking - and yet many often make decisions in just a minute and the very important gestalt of the print goes unnoticed. 
> 
> Over the years I have watched those who come here to take workshops glance at their prints and then run back to the display to make changes...we try to slooooow them down, make them mark up the print, then spend three minutes in photoshop and twenty looking at the print, letting it sink in, playing "pre-visualization" through imagination, squinting, blocking out, using a pencil to darken something temp to see... really just photographic practices...
> 
> Jon Cone
> Piezography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@> wrote:
> >
> > I find that regardless of what I do when scanning with B&W that I make further adjustments to get the print to get the "feel" that I need .. The contrast and tonality I see on my screen typically is different when I print the job.. It's not like the image is that far off it's just the relationship of areas in the image with respect to contrast and tonality are slightly different .. enough that I need to fool with it to get teh feel back..... I'm having a hard time putting words to this. I don't honestly feel I have these same issues in color printing.. This may sound like I'm incredibly unskilled and have horrible tools .. but I find B&W printing to truly attain a level  of excellance quite complex. I would love to make it easier but have yet to really get it truly figured out.. I mean I can make a good B&W print ...but when I get an image on the screen that talks to me.. It takes a while to get the print to talk that way also.. I honestly admit I need more experience.. hopefully it'll come..
> > 
> > jimbo
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> >   From: Mark Savoia 
> >   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> >   Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:22 PM
> >   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?
> > 
> > 
> >     
> >   Well everyone has their workflow that works for them and they think is 
> >   the simplest and easiest. Yours is just one of the many, many ways 
> >   with that approach. Only thing I see as an issue is why you need to do 
> >   that much adjusting of your scanned negs? Perhaps you need to work on 
> >   your scanner software so it gets things much closer.
> > 
> >   Mark
> >   http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> > 
> >   On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> > 
> >   > I'm a bw film photographer & need to learn how to print my scanned
> >   > negs digitally. In CS4, I've discovered that if I open my scanned
> >   > tiff's in Adobe Camera Raw, I can find pretty much all the adjustments
> >   > I need (mostly exposure & contrast) to keep my street look. I then
> >   > save the adjustments, open the file in Photoshop, probably apply a
> >   > gradient & then straight to print. It seems like I'm missing a world
> >   > of Photoshop possibilities, but if I tool around too much in PS, the
> >   > shots look too studied. Is anyone else using the simplified approach?
> >   > Comments appreciated.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Re: Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by tboleyyh

pretty much how I do it too, and I did a LOT of testing to make sure it worked well. Accept for possibly something like Digital Photo Lab, most scanner software is inferior to Photoshop.
I used a cool old Lindbloom app called Levels to evaluate how many levels were left in a grayscale file, brought to the same final state various ways, and the least lossy method was this.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Lew Schwartz <lew1716@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> So you and Walker don't do any curves or adjustments except for base & dMax
> on the scan side? This pretty much how we evaluate iso & development times
> for film.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:42 PM, piezobw <jon@...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > I agree with Walker about the positive scanning of negatives - it helps
> > eliminate the scanner manufacturer's algorithm for converting a neg to a
> > positive. I find this the best way to get out of the film what is there,
> > without the scanner software imposing its own idea of what is there.
> >
> > I'll add a penny to his two cents...
> >
> > I usually set the white point on the film base + fog, and I set the black
> > point on fully exposed film (leader for example). This way everything that
> > has been exposed will exist within the dMin/dMax possibilities of the film.
> >
> > Jon Cone
> > Piezography
> >
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Walker Blackwell <forums@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For BW, I often do raw (positive) drumscans of BW negs and inverted them
> > in ACR. Then I import into Lightroom and do most of my global adjustments in
> > there. I like it because it's non-destructive and faaast! (+ there is no
> > duplicates. Just the raw scan files with non-destructive crop.)
> > >
> > > + It gives me a more darkroom-esque workflow and I take save all my
> > adjustments as templates, etc. For straight photography, it works really
> > well for me.
> > >
> > > Just my two cents,
> > > Walker
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-14 by pdesmidt tds.net

I'm going to throw in with the group here.  When scanning, you want to
preserve as much info from the captured info as possible, and tonal
manipulation in the software will cause the loss of tones.  It's important
to distinguish hard ware changes, changes which effect the data captures,
and software changes, changes which manipulate the captured data.  When
scanning, just as with photographing, you want to control the exposure
through hardware adjustments to capture detail though out the scene.  The
problem with scanning is that scanning software does not make clear what is
a hardware adjustment and what is a software one.  With most consumer
scanners, there are few, if any, hardware adjustments, and the software is
loaded with extraneous adjustments that would be better made in Photoshop.


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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-15 by E.Neilsen

I will need to put a big wow! in here. There may be a time when an exposure
to print is all that is needed to make a really nice print but the fudging
around of local contrast just can not be done with PS or a selective type
editing software. Do the scan that holds the detail from dmin to dmax. Make
a slight adjustment toward the idea of the final image but not near enough.
then finish with the appropriate localized contrast control.   

 

As far as how long one needs to stew over the image, that has more to do
with how you reached the decision to scan it in the first place to me. Was
it already a print and you know what you did? etc The steps that allow for
the visualization of the print from negative and exposure to development of
film can take time to map out. And I'd be hard pressed to impose my thought
process on others when the act of seeing can not be judged directly through
their eyes, but only represented through their actions. 

 

Jon did you really work to a 50% gray, or an 18%, or to a VONE V.   

 

Eric

 

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

 



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

Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-15 by tboleyyh

Walker, that was cool, would never have occurred to me... just tried it on a large drum scanned 5x7 neg.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Walker Blackwell <forums@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> For BW, I often do raw (positive) drumscans of BW negs and inverted them in ACR. Then I import into Lightroom and do most of my global adjustments in there. I like it because it's non-destructive and faaast! (+ there is no duplicates. Just the raw scan files with non-destructive crop.)
> 
> + It gives me a more darkroom-esque workflow and I take save all my adjustments as templates, etc. For straight photography, it works really well for me.
> 
> Just my two cents,
> Walker
>

[Digital BW] Re: Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-15 by piezobw

Hey Eric,

You don't shoot a target like a card. You just expose film in 1/2 stops. Geoff had made some translucent white filters which fit over the lens. Aim it at the sky or anywhere for that matte where there was light. Was a matter of making 1/2 stop exposures to find 50% from dMin to dMax.

I will try and dig up my notes on it. It's a cool technique for those still shooting film. 

Jon Cone
Piezography




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> 
> Jon did you really work to a 50% gray, or an 18%, or to a VONE V.

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-15 by E.Neilsen

Jon, With film we have toe and shoulder, how is your 50% working with that?
I am interested in seeing what is going on. 

 

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

 

  _____
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of piezobw
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:10 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Is Camera Raw enough?

 

  

Hey Eric,

You don't shoot a target like a card. You just expose film in 1/2 stops.
Geoff had made some translucent white filters which fit over the lens. Aim
it at the sky or anywhere for that matte where there was light. Was a matter
of making 1/2 stop exposures to find 50% from dMin to dMax.

I will try and dig up my notes on it. It's a cool technique for those still
shooting film. 

Jon Cone
Piezography






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

[Digital BW] Re: Is Camera Raw enough?

2010-04-15 by piezobw

Trying to find the white paper to Geoff's method in our archives and will share when I find, including the PS curve correction routine.

I think however, if you can determine your minimum exposure and maximum exposure to affect silver during development - and you can plot your 50% - you will not have to deal with all the additional points of the curve. Do you see?

Think of a stouffer used to calibrate a scanner irregardless of the sensitivity of the paper these strips are usually used for. The scanner interprets density without regard to the sensitivity of the output paper or film for which the scan is intended (luckily). 

Being digital to the output you only need to worry about the 1:1 - if you can record dMin, dMax and the 50% density you can fix the curve's mid-point. Then the 1/4 and 3/4. You could plot the 1/8s as well, and make consideration for the toe and shoulder if you choose. It's rather simple this way. 

Jon Cone
Piezography

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Jon, With film we have toe and shoulder, how is your 50% working with that?
> I am interested in seeing what is going on. 
> 
>  
> 
> 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 piezobw
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:10 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Is Camera Raw enough?
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Hey Eric,
> 
> You don't shoot a target like a card. You just expose film in 1/2 stops.
> Geoff had made some translucent white filters which fit over the lens. Aim
> it at the sky or anywhere for that matte where there was light. Was a matter
> of making 1/2 stop exposures to find 50% from dMin to dMax.
> 
> I will try and dig up my notes on it. It's a cool technique for those still
> shooting film. 
> 
> Jon Cone
> Piezography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.