Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2004-02-16 by Robert
To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do you generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in? Have you tied shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end result? Robert Ades
2004-02-16 by Jake Hellbach
Hi Robert, Personally, I now do all my b/w digitally. I shoot in color mode and convert to b/w in Photoshop. I feel I get better tones digitally and none of the film grain. Jake Jake Hellbach Photography www.jakehellbachphoto.com
-----Original Message----- From: Robert [mailto:LA_Native@...] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 10:43 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do you generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in? Have you tied shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end result? Robert Ades [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-02-16 by Bernie Ess
Hi, I print UT1 on an 1160, and shoot on a Fuji S2 pro since last year. One has to be careful about not burning out the highlights, but otherwise my results in b&w - which I do 98% of the time - are great and surpass everything I have done on 35mm neg film. ON my site there are some of the S2 b&w results I shot in India last fall. The website is not very well made, but the photos are there. Look better printed than small on a monitor of course. Link is: http://home.arcor.de/albatros.be/ I also have a 20"x30" b&w poster print made on real photo paper by an online printservice, and the result is awfully good. No grain of course despite ISO 400... regards, Bernie
2004-02-16 by Robert
Jake: What digital camera body do you do most of your b&w work on? When you convert to b&w in PS, what technique do you use? Robert --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Hellbach" <jake@j...> wrote: > Hi Robert, > Personally, I now do all my b/w digitally. I shoot in color mode and convert > to b/w in Photoshop. > I feel I get better tones digitally and none of the film grain. > Jake > > > Jake Hellbach Photography > www.jakehellbachphoto.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert [mailto:LA_Native@h...] > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 10:43 AM > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do you > generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in? Have you tied > shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end result?
> > Robert Ades > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-02-16 by Jake Hellbach
Hi Robert, I use the Fuji S2 set to its highest resolution. I've tried just about all the color to b/w conversion's I've read about but I started using a PS action you can download from Glenn Mitchell's site: http://www.thelightsright.com/DigitalDarkroom/PhotoshopTools.htm It give me the best tonal range from any of the other conversion utilities I've tried and to me its the easiest to use. For printing b/w I use a Epson 1270 with the MIS b/w inks. I tried using my Epson 2200 but it always had color casts. I thought of a RIP but that was much more expensive then buying a used 1270 and the MIS inks. Jake Jake Hellbach Photography www.jakehellbachphoto.com
-----Original Message----- From: Robert [mailto:LA_Native@...] Jake: What digital camera body do you do most of your b&w work on? When you convert to b&w in PS, what technique do you use? Robert --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Hellbach" <jake@j...> wrote: > Hi Robert, > Personally, I now do all my b/w digitally. I shoot in color mode and convert > to b/w in Photoshop. > I feel I get better tones digitally and none of the film grain. > Jake > > > Jake Hellbach Photography > www.jakehellbachphoto.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-02-16 by Mark Hahn
I am shooting more film than digital, but have no problems with digital b&w (curves and channel mixer). Grain is a touchy issue as it often adds to the aesthetic appeal of some images... grain free doesn't always mean better. Since I often have mixed rolls of creative shots and family snapshots T400CN has become my prefered film as I can get a cheap stack of snaps and proofs and then get good scans for printing. mark ... the result is awfully good. No grain of > course despite ISO 400... ...
2004-02-16 by Rocky J. Boudreaux
"I use the Fuji S2 set to its highest resolution." Are you using RAW, TIFF or JPG? Rocky Houston, TX
-----Original Message----- From: Jake Hellbach [mailto:jake@...] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 1:35 PM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? Hi Robert, I use the Fuji S2 set to its highest resolution.
2004-02-16 by A. Huntley
Hello Robert, I have yet to find digitally produced B&W to be to my liking...maybe, it's just too many years of shooting B&W film. Since I use medium and large format for all my B&W, grain, sharpness, and tonal transitions/smoothness are not issues for me. I'm also an old foggy who still shoots Tri-X and, probably, still has some Dektol coursing through my veins! <g> Nowadays, I scan my film and produce quite nice B&W images usually on PR with an Epson 2200 driven by IP 5.6. I still miss the look of a finely crafted silver print, but do not miss the darkroom at all. Good luck with whatever direction your B&W path leads you. Alan Huntley
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert" <LA_Native@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:43 AM Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do you generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in? Have you tied shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end result?
2004-02-16 by Robert
Alan: Which scanner are you using for your Tri-X? My Canon FS4000 doesn't take to Tri-X too well -- adding quite a bit of grain and messing with the tonal qualities too much. I've much better success with chromogenics, especially XP-2. Robert --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote: > Hello Robert, > > I have yet to find digitally produced B&W to be to my liking...maybe, it's > just too many years of shooting B&W film. Since I use medium and large > format for all my B&W, grain, sharpness, and tonal transitions/smoothness > are not issues for me. I'm also an old foggy who still shoots Tri-X and, > probably, > still has some Dektol coursing through my veins! <g> Nowadays, I scan my > film and produce quite nice B&W images usually on PR with an Epson 2200 > driven by IP 5.6. I still miss the look of a finely crafted silver print, > but do not > miss the darkroom at all. > > Good luck with whatever direction your B&W path leads you. > > Alan Huntley > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert" <LA_Native@h...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:43 AM > Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do you > generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in? Have you tied > shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end result?
2004-02-16 by Stephen Kobrin
I shoot Portra B&W at 320. I can't speak to digital versus film quality, but I find I much prefer manual cameras. My local lab can develop a roll of C41 very reasonably and throw in a 4X6 index print for an additional dollar. The index print is good enough to let me see what I want to scan. Steve --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <LA_Native@h...> wrote: > Alan: Which scanner are you using for your Tri-X? My Canon FS4000 > doesn't take to Tri-X too well -- adding quite a bit of grain and > messing with the tonal qualities too much. I've much better success > with chromogenics, especially XP-2. > > Robert > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" > <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > > > I have yet to find digitally produced B&W to be to my > liking...maybe, it's > > just too many years of shooting B&W film. Since I use medium and > large > > format for all my B&W, grain, sharpness, and tonal > transitions/smoothness > > are not issues for me. I'm also an old foggy who still shoots Tri- X > and, > > probably, > > still has some Dektol coursing through my veins! <g> Nowadays, I > scan my > > film and produce quite nice B&W images usually on PR with an Epson > 2200 > > driven by IP 5.6. I still miss the look of a finely crafted silver > print, > > but do not > > miss the darkroom at all. > > > > Good luck with whatever direction your B&W path leads you. > > > > Alan Huntley > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Robert" <LA_Native@h...> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:43 AM > > Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > > > > To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do you > > generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in? Have you tied > > shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end > result?
2004-02-16 by Peter A. Klein
Robert: I have an FS-4000, and I find it *much* better than the 2700 dpi scanner that it replaced. 2700 dpi and ISO 400 silver film do some nasty aliasing. With the FS4000, the grains look like the actual grains of the film as viewed with a powerful magnifier, rather than stuff 2x to 3x bigger. The Nikon scanners use LED light sources, which are more collimated than the Canon's bulb. So they actually emphasize grain more than the Canon. The Nikons also have a grain reducer called GEM, which helps. T400CN and XP2 are less grainy than Tri-X by nature, and scan very well. But Tri-X handles low light and underexposure very well. Chromagenic films tolerate overexposure much better than underexposure. They can look beautiful in the midtones and highlights, but be very muddy and grainy in deep shadows. My guess is that your grain aliasing problem may be a software problem, not a scanner problem. The Canon FilmGet software lops quite a bit off the low and high ends of the image. High contrast, which emphasizes grain. If you switch to VueScan, things are much much better, and you get the full scale, which you can adjust in your image editor. VueScan also has three degrees of software grain reduction--I've occasionally used the "Light" setting. Here's a Tri-X shot scanned on the FS-4000 with VueScan: http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/2-03LonyaMischaWeb.jpg As you can see, there is not a whole lot of grain, even though it's a crop of about 2/3 of the frame. In a letter size print, you can see a little grain texture in the print. I could diminish it with grain reduction in VueScan, or I could use NeatImage. But you know what? I preferred things unaltered. For comparison, here's a T400CN shot under the similar conditions. It's smoother, even though it was scanned at only 2700 dpi (Nikon LS- 2000). Again, with VueScan: http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/quartet.htm If you really dislike grain, by all means use XP2, but shoot it at 200, not 400, and give it an extra half stop when shadows are dark and important to your picture. Try VueScan ( http://www.hamrick.com ) before you think about dumping your scanner. Also, if you're developing with D-76 or HC-100, try Kodak Xtol or Ilford DDX. Hope this helps, --Peter --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <LA_Native@h...> wrote: > Alan: Which scanner are you using for your Tri-X? My Canon FS4000 > doesn't take to Tri-X too well -- adding quite a bit of grain and > messing with the tonal qualities too much. I've much better success > with chromogenics, especially XP-2. > > Robert > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" > <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > > > I have yet to find digitally produced B&W to be to my > liking...maybe, it's > > just too many years of shooting B&W film. Since I use medium and > large > > format for all my B&W, grain, sharpness, and tonal > transitions/smoothness > > are not issues for me. I'm also an old foggy who still shoots Tri- X > and, > > probably, > > still has some Dektol coursing through my veins! <g> Nowadays, I > scan my > > film and produce quite nice B&W images usually on PR with an Epson > 2200 > > driven by IP 5.6. I still miss the look of a finely crafted silver > print, > > but do not > > miss the darkroom at all. > > > > Good luck with whatever direction your B&W path leads you. > > > > Alan Huntley > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Robert" <LA_Native@h...> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:43 AM > > Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > > > > To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do you > > generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in? Have you tied > > shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end > result?
2004-02-16 by Jake Hellbach
Usually RAW,but if I know I won't need large enlargements or I need more then the 80 photos I get on the 1GIG card at the RAW setting I'll use the JPG fine setting. Jake Jake Hellbach Photography www.jakehellbachphoto.com
-----Original Message----- From: Rocky J. Boudreaux [mailto:rocky@...] "I use the Fuji S2 set to its highest resolution." Are you using RAW, TIFF or JPG? Rocky Houston, TX -----Original Message----- From: Jake Hellbach [mailto:jake@...] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 1:35 PM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? Hi Robert, I use the Fuji S2 set to its highest resolution. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-02-16 by santacruztacean
Hi Robert No digital camera yet - I'm very satisfied printing 24" sq. on my 7600. No grain - Agfa APX100/Rodinal, w/ Hass. or Rollei TLR, scanned on Nikon 8000. In order to get this same quality w/ a digital camera would require much more $ than I can afford. A used Rollei can be had for under $1000, and will still be worth more than that ten years from now. Be sure to see the Arbus exhibit when it opens at LAMoMA. Phil
2004-02-16 by Mark Hahn
ten years is a pretty long time... ten years ago I would have felt comfortable with this prediction, but not today. Used film camera prices are dropping fast and the leaps in digital quality in the next 10 years can be expected to be great. My local camera shop already has more used Rolleis on consignment than it can ever expect to sell. mark ... A used Rollei can > be had for under $1000, and will still be worth more than that ten years from now. ...
2004-02-16 by Robert
Peter, thanks for your informative response. I do use Vuescan, so I've already achieved some of the benefits you speak of. -Robert --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter A. Klein" <pklein@2...> wrote: > Robert: I have an FS-4000, and I find it *much* better than the 2700 > dpi scanner that it replaced. 2700 dpi and ISO 400 silver film do > some nasty aliasing. With the FS4000, the grains look like the > actual grains of the film as viewed with a powerful magnifier, rather > than stuff 2x to 3x bigger. > > The Nikon scanners use LED light sources, which are more collimated > than the Canon's bulb. So they actually emphasize grain more than > the Canon. The Nikons also have a grain reducer called GEM, which > helps. > > T400CN and XP2 are less grainy than Tri-X by nature, and scan very > well. But Tri-X handles low light and underexposure very well. > Chromagenic films tolerate overexposure much better than > underexposure. They can look beautiful in the midtones and > highlights, but be very muddy and grainy in deep shadows. > > My guess is that your grain aliasing problem may be a software > problem, not a scanner problem. The Canon FilmGet software lops > quite a bit off the low and high ends of the image. High contrast, > which emphasizes grain. If you switch to VueScan, things are much > much better, and you get the full scale, which you can adjust in your > image editor. VueScan also has three degrees of software grain > reduction--I've occasionally used the "Light" setting. > > Here's a Tri-X shot scanned on the FS-4000 with VueScan: > http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/2-03LonyaMischaWeb.jpg > As you can see, there is not a whole lot of grain, even though it's a > crop of about 2/3 of the frame. In a letter size print, you can see a > little grain texture in the print. I could diminish it with grain > reduction in VueScan, or I could use NeatImage. But you know what? > I preferred things unaltered. > > For comparison, here's a T400CN shot under the similar conditions. > It's smoother, even though it was scanned at only 2700 dpi (Nikon LS- > 2000). Again, with VueScan: > http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/quartet.htm > > If you really dislike grain, by all means use XP2, but shoot it at > 200, not 400, and give it an extra half stop when shadows are dark > and important to your picture. > > Try VueScan ( http://www.hamrick.com ) before you think about dumping > your scanner. > > Also, if you're developing with D-76 or HC-100, try Kodak Xtol or > Ilford DDX. > > Hope this helps, > --Peter > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" > <LA_Native@h...> wrote: > > Alan: Which scanner are you using for your Tri-X? My Canon FS4000 > > doesn't take to Tri-X too well -- adding quite a bit of grain and > > messing with the tonal qualities too much. I've much better > success > > with chromogenics, especially XP-2. > > > > Robert > > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" > > <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote: > > > Hello Robert, > > > > > > I have yet to find digitally produced B&W to be to my > > liking...maybe, it's > > > just too many years of shooting B&W film. Since I use medium and > > large > > > format for all my B&W, grain, sharpness, and tonal > > transitions/smoothness > > > are not issues for me. I'm also an old foggy who still shoots Tri- > X > > and, > > > probably, > > > still has some Dektol coursing through my veins! <g> Nowadays, I > > scan my > > > film and produce quite nice B&W images usually on PR with an > Epson > > 2200 > > > driven by IP 5.6. I still miss the look of a finely crafted > silver > > print, > > > but do not > > > miss the darkroom at all. > > > > > > Good luck with whatever direction your B&W path leads you. > > > > > > Alan Huntley > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Robert" <LA_Native@h...> > > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:43 AM > > > Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > > > > > > > To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do
> you > > > generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in? Have you > tied > > > shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end > > result?
2004-02-16 by Robert
Hi Phil: Nice to see that you're still lurking around here. I am debating whether to jump on board with one of the new mid-priced digital cameras (Canon 10D, etc.), or buy a Contax G2 system second hand and wait another year before I consider digital. I love the feel of the Contax, but I wondered how many of the fine art photographers in this forum shoot their b&w on digital now. -Robert --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "santacruztacean" <santacruztacean@y...> wrote: > Hi Robert > > No digital camera yet - I'm very satisfied printing 24" sq. on my 7600. No grain - Agfa > APX100/Rodinal, w/ Hass. or Rollei TLR, scanned on Nikon 8000. In order to get this same > quality w/ a digital camera would require much more $ than I can afford. A used Rollei can > be had for under $1000, and will still be worth more than that ten years from now.
> > Be sure to see the Arbus exhibit when it opens at LAMoMA. > > Phil
2004-02-17 by santacruztacean
> I am debating whether to jump on board with one of the new mid-priced > digital cameras (Canon 10D, etc.), or buy a Contax G2 system second > hand and wait another year before I consider digital. I love the > feel of the Contax, but I wondered how many of the fine art > photographers in this forum shoot their b&w on digital now. > > -Robert Robert - FWIW, I'm expecting to buy a Nikon D70 when it comes out - for business, not for serious fine art prints. Regarding the Contax G2, please give some serious consideration to moving into the Leica MP camp (or used M3) - the long term satisfaction you'll get will override the more expensive intial cost. And plan on springing for a good film scanner, such as the new Nikon - you won't regret it. Phil
2004-02-17 by santacruztacean
> Used film camera prices are dropping fast and the leaps in digital quality in the next > 10 years can be expected to be great. My local camera shop already has more used Rolleis on consignment than it can ever expect to sell. > > mark You're right - prices have gone way down... except for the good stuff: Rollei F's & E3's, Leica M3's, Sinar Normas, Alpa 9's etc. are still going up. What's really going down is darkroom equipment - Leitz enlargers etc. It seems serious photographers are still shooting film, but printing digitally. Phil
2004-02-17 by Mark Hahn
Most commercial work has gone or is going digital and more and more serious photographers are drifting into digital which I think most people expect to increase as newer, better and cheaper serious DSLRs etc. make it to market. There are lots of Leicas and Roleis out there and after more people "go digital" it is hard not to image that the market will be somewhat flooded and you either sell cheaper or not at all. Yes, the good stuff is still going up now, but I wouldn't doubt that it is somewhat driven by the desire to have used the good stuff before going digital (I feel this desire). I think most people already recognise that they are going to be seriously shooting digital very soon (if not already). Film will more or less die except for clinging on as a niche market for a while. Everyone expects most serious Polariod films to vanish any week, Agfa has already gotten out of 4x5", emulsions are being dropped... the writing is on the wall. Fun times ahead is what I think:) mark > > You're right - prices have gone way down... except for the good stuff: Rollei F's & E3's, > Leica M3's, Sinar Normas, Alpa 9's etc. are still going up. What's really going down is > darkroom equipment - Leitz enlargers etc. It seems serious photographers are still
> shooting film, but printing digitally. > > Phil
2004-02-17 by Clayton Jones
Hello Robert, >I love the feel of the Contax, but I wondered how many of the >fine art photographers in this forum shoot their b&w on >digital now. Why does it matter what anyone else does? I predict that some fine art BW folks will use film for many years, and others will go digi, and beautiful results will come from both. In the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Some people love the smell of developer and hypo and the romance of working in an old tradition, and that may be reason enough to stay with film. Others, while acknowledging the abilities of digicams, simply miss the "look" of their film images and are willing to continue using film to have that. For others, the abilities of digicams outweigh all of that. What are _you_ most comfortable with? Do some serious examination of your thoughts and feelings on the question and try to filter out things that have to do with what others do or think (or what you think they think). Narrow it down to your own pure intuition and inner guidance and you will approach true artistry. Download sample images from the digi cams at dpreview.com, convert to BW and print them, and compare the results to scans from your own BW negs. Make up your own mind. Don't be a lemming. There is no hurry. Regards, Clayton Info on black and white digital printing at http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
2004-02-17 by Robert
>>Why does it matter what anyone else does?<< That's a loaded question. This forum is intended primarily for b&w digital photography in print. No other place on the web, AFAIK has such a concentration of b&w photographers. I have heard from many photogs that, unlike color, b&w is a lot harder to get right when shot digitally. Of course, I know all the benefits of digital capture, but I hold this group in high esteem, and I'd like to get a sense of what others are doing in this regard. Robert Ades
2004-02-17 by Anthony G. Atkielski
santacruztacean writes: > It seems serious photographers are still > shooting film, but printing digitally. There are still strong arguments for film capture and there will be for some time, but in virtually ever other part of the workflow, digital has no disadvantages to speak of. As a result, a great many photographers have switched entirely to digital _except_ for image capture. Note that "digital" does not include printing (printing and capture are always analog in any system). Ink-jet prints (often erroneously called "digital" prints) are not yet the rule for color, as far as I can tell, mainly because they are still inferior to wet prints. For black-and-white, they seem to compete well, though. Personally, I still shoot all my black and white on film, but I scan the results immediately, and if I need prints, I have them prepared on real photo paper from the digital scans. I do exactly the same thing for color. -- Anthony
2004-02-17 by kcooper666
Hi I've been using 35mm film for my B/W landscape work and scanning it. However a few months fortuitous work in London (horrid place :-) has just allowed me to consider moving entirely to digital. In a few weeks I'll have finished my 'sentence', and will be able to spend some time getting the hang of a Canon 1Ds and then printing the results on an Epson 9600. :-)) I've been shooting commercial (event and PR) work digitally for some time, but found that the quality was not there (particularly at wide angle) to match what I could get from film. I'm going to take film with me as well when I go on my tour, so I can do some real comparisons. I'm looking to document the process on my web site and hope it will be of interest to other people... I did consider moving to MF and buying a new scanner etc, but the 1Ds will be of considerable benefit to the rest of my business as well. On the other hand the bulk of the 1Ds with a couple of decent lenses is not dissimilar to going out with MF ... not something to have hanging round your neck very long :-) bye for now Keith Cooper http://www.northlight-images.co.uk
2004-02-17 by A. Huntley
Robert, I am currently using an Epson 1680 Pro applying a wet mount technique directly on the glass bed. I use Vuescan for most B&W scanning because it delivers the kind of image I like to work with. I also own Silverfast 6 for this scanner, but only use this software for color work; I found Silverfast's grayscale scanning much to contrasty for my taste, and it seemed to dump the lower end way before Vuescan. And, yes, I tried all of the profiles available via Negafix. I have only ever tried scanning B&W (Delta 100) on my Scan Dual III and didn't like it much. I'm really finding that even in the digital arena many of the old rules still apply. For example, there's not substitute for film real estate. Scans of my 8x10 Tri-X negs printed to ~ 13x19 are absolutely gorgeous! My miniature format--4x5--is good, too, with 2 1/4 really just okay. I'm sure a good medium format scanner like the Nikon 9000 or Minolta Pro would do wonders for my medium format stuff, but I really don't shoot enough of this size to justify the cost of the larger film scanners. Alan Huntley
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert" <LA_Native@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? Alan: Which scanner are you using for your Tri-X? My Canon FS4000 doesn't take to Tri-X too well -- adding quite a bit of grain and messing with the tonal qualities too much. I've much better success with chromogenics, especially XP-2. Robert --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote: > Hello Robert, > > I have yet to find digitally produced B&W to be to my liking...maybe, it's > just too many years of shooting B&W film. Since I use medium and large > format for all my B&W, grain, sharpness, and tonal transitions/smoothness > are not issues for me. I'm also an old foggy who still shoots Tri-X and, > probably, > still has some Dektol coursing through my veins! <g> Nowadays, I scan my > film and produce quite nice B&W images usually on PR with an Epson 2200 > driven by IP 5.6. I still miss the look of a finely crafted silver print, > but do not > miss the darkroom at all. > > Good luck with whatever direction your B&W path leads you. > > Alan Huntley > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert" <LA_Native@h...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:43 AM > Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do you > generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in? Have you tied > shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end result? Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. Please follow these basic guidelines: - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice. - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership. - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. Yahoo! Groups Links
2004-02-17 by A. Huntley
Robert, I would highly recommend a used Leica M over any Contax G2. Just a thought........ Alan Huntley
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert" <LA_Native@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:40 PM Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? Hi Phil: Nice to see that you're still lurking around here. I am debating whether to jump on board with one of the new mid-priced digital cameras (Canon 10D, etc.), or buy a Contax G2 system second hand and wait another year before I consider digital. I love the feel of the Contax, but I wondered how many of the fine art photographers in this forum shoot their b&w on digital now.
2004-02-17 by A. Huntley
Hello Mark, In general I agree with what you said, but here's what I'm hoping for: Moore's Law will continue alive and well. That is, a few years from now maybe the cost of 16-22 megapixel medium format backs will be in the price range of where the Canon 1Ds is now--uh, where "normal" folks might be able to afford it--and I'll break out the Hassey outfit with its wonderful Zeiss glass, and be creating images that no small image sensor could touch. Me thinks that all of a sudden those used Rollei's and Hassy's that everyone is dumping now will mysteriously become very valuable again. One can only hope, right? Alan Huntley
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 5:54 PM Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? Most commercial work has gone or is going digital and more and more serious photographers are drifting into digital which I think most people expect to increase as newer, better and cheaper serious DSLRs etc. make it to market. There are lots of Leicas and Roleis out there and after more people "go digital" it is hard not to image that the market will be somewhat flooded and you either sell cheaper or not at all. Yes, the good stuff is still going up now, but I wouldn't doubt that it is somewhat driven by the desire to have used the good stuff before going digital (I feel this desire). I think most people already recognise that they are going to be seriously shooting digital very soon (if not already). Film will more or less die except for clinging on as a niche market for a while. Everyone expects most serious Polariod films to vanish any week, Agfa has already gotten out of 4x5", emulsions are being dropped... the writing is on the wall. Fun times ahead is what I think:)
2004-02-17 by Mark Hahn
I think that will happen... I've been eyeing the Mamiyas since the prices of the 645 are almost going into free fall now. guess I always think Classic TLR when someone mentions Rollei. With my current 7660 problems associated with film scanning I am almost ready to just buy a Digital Rebel or 10D on the way home just to get a quick fix to my film scanning/printing woes... People talk about how film is better for b&w, but since the grain gives scanners fits and apparently some printers, you have to wonder how much better it really is if your intended output is a inkjet... sure you can shoot medium/large format or Techpan, but the allure of film has always been fast and light weight for me. mark --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote: > Hello Mark, > > In general I agree with what you said, but here's what I'm hoping for: > Moore's Law will continue alive and well. That is, a few years from now > maybe the cost of 16-22 megapixel medium format backs will be in the price > range of where the Canon 1Ds is now--uh, where "normal" folks might be able > to afford it--and I'll break out the Hassey outfit with its wonderful Zeiss > glass, and be creating images that no small image sensor could touch. Me > thinks that all of a sudden those used Rollei's and Hassy's that everyone is > dumping now will mysteriously become very valuable again. > > One can only hope, right? > > Alan Huntley > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@y...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 5:54 PM > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > Most commercial work has gone or is going digital and more and more > serious photographers are drifting into digital which I think most > people expect to increase as newer, better and cheaper serious DSLRs > etc. make it to market. There are lots of Leicas and Roleis out > there and after more people "go digital" it is hard not to image that
> the market will be somewhat flooded and you either sell cheaper or > not at all. Yes, the good stuff is still going up now, but I > wouldn't doubt that it is somewhat driven by the desire to have used > the good stuff before going digital (I feel this desire). I think > most people already recognise that they are going to be seriously > shooting digital very soon (if not already). Film will more or less > die except for clinging on as a niche market for a while. Everyone > expects most serious Polariod films to vanish any week, Agfa has > already gotten out of 4x5", emulsions are being dropped... the > writing is on the wall. Fun times ahead is what I think:)
2004-02-17 by Mark Hahn
At least give the Contax G2 a good test. I found them to be the worst of both worlds... the glass that goes with them is great though. mark --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> Robert, > > I would highly recommend a used Leica M over any Contax G2. Just a > thought........ > > Alan Huntley > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert" <LA_Native@h...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:40 PM > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > Hi Phil: Nice to see that you're still lurking around here. I am > debating whether to jump on board with one of the new mid-priced > digital cameras (Canon 10D, etc.), or buy a Contax G2 system second > hand and wait another year before I consider digital. I love the > feel of the Contax, but I wondered how many of the fine art > photographers in this forum shoot their b&w on digital now.
2004-02-17 by Clayton Jones
Hello Robert, >I have heard from many photogs that, unlike color, b&w is a lot >harder to get right when shot digitally. Of course, I know all >the benefits of digital capture, but I hold this group in high >esteem, and I'd like to get a sense of what others are doing in >this regard. I see your point, sorry to sound so strong. It just struck me that way I guess. I am currently experimenting with digital capture with a Canon G3 (4mp) and am pleased with the results up to a point, for small prints, but I still like the results from scanned negs better. I'm finding that a lot depends on how the converson to BW is done. I have hope for it, as I would like to move away from film. But it definitely has its own look, and it varies significantly among different cameras (I've seen BW digicam prints in print exchanges and have had a couple of digicams myself). Regards, Clayton Info on black and white digital printing at http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
2004-02-17 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Mark Hahn writes: > People talk about how film is better for b&w, but since the grain > gives scanners fits and apparently some printers, you have to wonder > how much better it really is if your intended output is a inkjet... > sure you can shoot medium/large format or Techpan, but the allure of > film has always been fast and light weight for me. Unless and until monochrome digital sensors become widely available, film will continue to have an advantage for black and white.
2004-02-17 by flyfishingusa2002
Alan,Whilst i accept what you say, the question is how many of the readers of this forum have the money or the knowledge to work with a 10x 8 neg? Very. very few I imagine. Scanning small format film is a big problem in itself as I found out with a Nikon scanner. Currently I use a Canon 10d and shoot everything it color. The digital darkroom allows the photographer considerable flexibility with post processing, for example, you can oversaturate a single color to emphise it on the final color to B/W conversion. Add a filter via Photoshop, etc, etc. Can you do that with your 10 x 8 tri x neg ? How much does it cost you to get one 10 x 8 print? Ansel Adams would have been all digital by now I'm sure. Each to their own, I have a number of BO prints hanging on my wall that were shot on both neg and digital, the truth is that I can't see any difference from here apart from which subject i like or not like. Sierra Gold --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote: > Robert, > > I am currently using an Epson 1680 Pro applying a wet mount technique > directly on the glass bed. I use Vuescan for most B&W scanning because it > delivers the kind of image I like to work with. I also own Silverfast 6 for > this scanner, but only use this software for color work; I found > Silverfast's grayscale scanning much to contrasty for my taste, and it > seemed to dump the lower end way before Vuescan. And, yes, I tried all of > the profiles available via Negafix. > > I have only ever tried scanning B&W (Delta 100) on my Scan Dual III and > didn't like it much. I'm really finding that even in the digital arena many > of the old rules still apply. For example, there's not substitute for film > real estate. Scans of my 8x10 Tri-X negs printed to ~ 13x19 are absolutely > gorgeous! My miniature format--4x5--is good, too, with 2 1/4 really just > okay. I'm sure a good medium format scanner like the Nikon 9000 or Minolta > Pro would do wonders for my medium format stuff, but I really don't shoot > enough of this size to justify the cost of the larger film scanners. > > Alan Huntley > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert" <LA_Native@h...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 2:08 PM > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > Alan: Which scanner are you using for your Tri-X? My Canon FS4000 > doesn't take to Tri-X too well -- adding quite a bit of grain and > messing with the tonal qualities too much. I've much better success > with chromogenics, especially XP-2. > > Robert > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" > <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > > > I have yet to find digitally produced B&W to be to my > liking...maybe, it's > > just too many years of shooting B&W film. Since I use medium and > large > > format for all my B&W, grain, sharpness, and tonal > transitions/smoothness > > are not issues for me. I'm also an old foggy who still shoots Tri- X > and, > > probably, > > still has some Dektol coursing through my veins! <g> Nowadays, I > scan my > > film and produce quite nice B&W images usually on PR with an Epson > 2200 > > driven by IP 5.6. I still miss the look of a finely crafted silver > print, > > but do not > > miss the darkroom at all. > > > > Good luck with whatever direction your B&W path leads you. > > > > Alan Huntley > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Robert" <LA_Native@h...> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:43 AM > > Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > > > > To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do you > > generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in? Have you tied > > shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end > result? > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as > they are often being updated. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same > page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep > them short. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the > membership without notice. > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from > the membership. > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and > Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU > FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY > DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, > GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE > POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY > TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR > ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY > THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. > > Yahoo! Groups Links
2004-02-17 by Mark Hahn
I'm not getting into another film vs. digital b&w from rgb arguement... but I will comment that while 8x10" negatives can produce great images, very few subjects lend themselves to 8x10" equipment... I don't know anyone that shots a small camera because they specifically want a small negative... 35mm was a what most photogs found to be a good compromise between image quality and convenient fast action. If someone is content with the limited subjects suited for large format that is great, the quality can be stellar, but there are a lot of other things worth shooting as well. mark ... > Alan,Whilst i accept what you say, the question is how many of the > readers of this forum have the money or the knowledge to work with a > 10x 8 neg? Very. very few I imagine. Scanning small format film is a > big problem in itself as I found out with a Nikon scanner. ...
2004-02-17 by A. Huntley
Actually, a used 8x10 (depending on what you get, of course) and a couple of used lenses would probably not run much more than the cost of, say, a Canon 10D with a consumer grade lens like the 28-135 IS zoom. And, the image quality at any size from any film would wallop the 10D output. I speak from experience because I own both! I'm not going to argue the use of 8x10...I agree with Mark, use of large format gear is very dependent on the subjects one likes to shoot. Would I use an 8x10 for street photography? Of course not. Would I use 35mm to photograph the grandeur of the landscape? I probably wouldn't select that format as my primary choice. I hear what you're saying about B&W conversions in the digital darkroom, but I've tried just about all of 'em and have yet to settle on something that I like as much as scanned B&W film. As I said before, maybe it's just too many years of working in the wet darkroom and shooting film. To say that Ansel would be ALL digital now is a very strong statement. I'm sure that he would embrace digital as he always seemed to be forward thinking/looking. But, Moonrise at 40x60 from digital? I don't think so! Even from the 1Ds............. If you like your prints, great! That's what it's all about. You don't have to please me or anyone on this list. I've seen wonderful images from a plastic Holga. Was the photographer happy with the result? I bet. Would they satisfy me? No. But, that's the beauty of our craft. I only have to be satisfied with what I do. Alan Huntley
----- Original Message ----- From: "flyfishingusa2002" <tflyfish@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? Alan,Whilst i accept what you say, the question is how many of the readers of this forum have the money or the knowledge to work with a 10x 8 neg? Very. very few I imagine. Scanning small format film is a big problem in itself as I found out with a Nikon scanner. Currently I use a Canon 10d and shoot everything it color. The digital darkroom allows the photographer considerable flexibility with post processing, for example, you can oversaturate a single color to emphise it on the final color to B/W conversion. Add a filter via Photoshop, etc, etc. Can you do that with your 10 x 8 tri x neg ? How much does it cost you to get one 10 x 8 print? Ansel Adams would have been all digital by now I'm sure. Each to their own, I have a number of BO prints hanging on my wall that were shot on both neg and digital, the truth is that I can't see any difference from here apart from which subject i like or not like.
2004-02-17 by A. Huntley
You'll have to pry my Hasselblad from my dead hands hoping you're right! <g> Ah, yes, the 2.8 Rollei...what an absolutely marvelous camera. But, sorry, I'd be an SL66 guy myself. I don't own one. Even though I thoroughly enjoy using my Canon 10D, I still really enjoy pulling out my Nikon F2 every once in awhile and running a few rolls through it. There's just something about the feel and nostalgia of these old cameras....Leica M2, anyone? Grain? What grain? I don't see any from my 4x5 and 8x10 scans. And, we're talking mostly Tri-X here. But, I know what you mean about the smaller formats...scanning 35mm drives me absolutely nuts! Fast and lightweight is good for those subjects that lend itself to this style of shooting but, for me, there is nothing that compares to viewing my image on a groundglass about the size of a small TV screen! And, before digital, I was viewing my image at actual print size because I had no means of enlarging those huge negs. I don't know how to explain it, but there's something that happens when you're viewing your final print at the time of image creation; other than the fact that the image on the groundglass is in color, of course. I could never afford to shoot 8x10 color! Nowadays, B&W is bad enough; $150 for 50 sheets of 8x10 Tri-X. Ouch! I remember when it was less than a buck a sheet. Times have changed, fir sure! Alan Huntley
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? I think that will happen... I've been eyeing the Mamiyas since the prices of the 645 are almost going into free fall now. guess I always think Classic TLR when someone mentions Rollei. With my current 7660 problems associated with film scanning I am almost ready to just buy a Digital Rebel or 10D on the way home just to get a quick fix to my film scanning/printing woes... People talk about how film is better for b&w, but since the grain gives scanners fits and apparently some printers, you have to wonder how much better it really is if your intended output is a inkjet... sure you can shoot medium/large format or Techpan, but the allure of film has always been fast and light weight for me.
2004-02-17 by Stephen Billard
Good luck. Moore's law works mostly by shrinking the die size of the chip. Making them big is much tougher. -Stephen www.sbillard.org/Stephen
-----Original Message----- From: A. Huntley [mailto:Alan.Huntley@...] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 9:11 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? Hello Mark, In general I agree with what you said, but here's what I'm hoping for: Moore's Law will continue alive and well. That is, a few years from now maybe the cost of 16-22 megapixel medium format backs will be in the price range of where the Canon 1Ds is now--uh, where "normal" folks might be able to afford it--and I'll break out the Hassey outfit with its wonderful Zeiss glass, and be creating images that no small image sensor could touch. Me thinks that all of a sudden those used Rollei's and Hassy's that everyone is dumping now will mysteriously become very valuable again. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-02-18 by Paul Roark
>Unless and until monochrome digital sensors become widely available, >film will continue to have an advantage for black and white. I participated in the PMA show last week in Las Vegas and asked one of the Canon representatives about a B&W sensor. This person knew of no plans for such. Paul www.PaulRoark.com For UT2 information, curves, and settings see: http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/
2004-02-18 by Bob Michaels
I certainly respect Alan's opinion and sure don't want to get a Leica M vs. Contax G debate going. So I'll just add that I'm very happy shooting my Contax G1 and G2 bodies with Zeiss 21mm Biogon, 28mm Biogon, 35mm Planar, 45mm Planar and 90mm Sonnar lenses. Price that in the Leica equivalent. The difference will get you a nice car to get somewhere to shoot. Bob Michaels --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> Robert, > > I would highly recommend a used Leica M over any Contax G2. Just a > thought........ > > Alan Huntley >
2004-02-18 by Truman Prevatt
I doubt if they see much a market for it - probably not even enough to justify any development and testing cost. B&W photography is a small nitch market and Canon is not a small nitch player. Truman Truman Paul Roark wrote: > > >Unless and until monochrome digital sensors become widely available, > >film will continue to have an advantage for black and white. > > I participated in the PMA show last week in Las Vegas and asked one of the > Canon representatives about a B&W sensor. This person knew of no > plans for > such. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-02-18 by A. Huntley
No question, Bob, regarding the cost of things Leica. The Contax glass is top-flight...I just didn't personally like the viewfinder of the G1...never looked at the G2. A nice car for the difference? Dunno about that, but my wallet would have certainly appreciated your opinion several years ago! <g> Alan Huntley
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Michaels" <bob@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:43 PM Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? I certainly respect Alan's opinion and sure don't want to get a Leica M vs. Contax G debate going. So I'll just add that I'm very happy shooting my Contax G1 and G2 bodies with Zeiss 21mm Biogon, 28mm Biogon, 35mm Planar, 45mm Planar and 90mm Sonnar lenses. Price that in the Leica equivalent. The difference will get you a nice car to get somewhere to shoot.
2004-02-18 by Jon
Anthony G. Atkielski in another film vs. digital thread. How surprising.
2004-02-18 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Paul Roark writes: > I participated in the PMA show last week in Las Vegas and asked one of the > Canon representatives about a B&W sensor. This person knew of no plans for > such. That does not surprise me. The same market that is jumping the fastest onto the digital bandwagon probably has never even seen black and white prints. It's unfortunate, though, since a high-resolution, true monochrome image sensor would produce very nice black and white indeed.
2004-02-18 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Stephen Billard writes: > Moore's law works mostly by shrinking the die size of the chip. Making them > big is much tougher. Unfortunately, the only way to really increase image quality over the long run is to increase the size of the chip. Just as larger film formats produce better images because of the larger size of the image area, large sensors can produce better images than small sensors, all else being equal. I don't think any 8x10 single-shot sensors are forthcoming in the foreseeable future ... but what a nice image they would produce if they existed!
2004-02-18 by Stephen Kobrin
While I am not sure that I want to prolong this debate, I had a G2 and sold it to buy a used M6 and slowly acquired three used Leica lenses. I thought the G2 glass was terrific and was not bothered by the viewfinder. While I suspect that I am in a small minority, I could not deal with the lack of control resulting from the G2 autofocus -- although it was accurate even with the 90. There is no way to scale focus the camera, for example. I much prefer an all manual camera and I found that if you shop carefully, you can pick up a used M6 reasonably. I have a Canon G2 digital and do not use it a great deal for the same reason. The upside of all you guys switching to digital is that there are great deals on a wide range of film cameras -- Canon FD lenses for example are almost give-aways. Steve --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote: > No question, Bob, regarding the cost of things Leica. The Contax glass is > top-flight...I just didn't personally like the viewfinder of the G1...never > looked at the G2. A nice car for the difference? Dunno about that, but my > wallet would have certainly appreciated your opinion several years ago! <g> > > Alan Huntley > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bob Michaels" <bob@b...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:43 PM > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > I certainly respect Alan's opinion and sure don't want to get a Leica > M vs. Contax G debate going. So I'll just add that I'm very happy > shooting my Contax G1 and G2 bodies with Zeiss 21mm Biogon, 28mm > Biogon, 35mm Planar, 45mm Planar and 90mm Sonnar lenses. Price that in > the Leica equivalent. The difference will get you a nice car to get > somewhere to shoot.
2004-02-18 by Alan Zinn
At 08:57 AM 2/18/04 +0100, you wrote: >Paul Roark writes: > > > I participated in the PMA show last week in Las Vegas and asked one of the > > Canon representatives about a B&W sensor. This person knew of no plans for > > such. > >That does not surprise me. The same market that is jumping the fastest >onto the digital bandwagon probably has never even seen black and white >prints. It's unfortunate, though, since a high-resolution, true >monochrome image sensor would produce very nice black and white indeed. > > As technology changes I think it is useful to keep looking back. It's not difficult to see why new methods were better but what was given up for the improvements? Is a film-based picture inferior for the less than one percent doing salon photography or just a little inconvenient? You know the answer. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us
2004-02-18 by Robert
Steve: Just so you know, I'm keeping my Nikon FE2 with its complement of primes for just such manual control for when the G2 doesn't suit. For some reason, I don't like manual focusing on rangefinder cameras. It's just too non-intuitive for me. -Robert --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Kobrin" <kobrins@w...> wrote: > While I am not sure that I want to prolong this debate, I had a G2 > and sold it to buy a used M6 and slowly acquired three used Leica > lenses. I thought the G2 glass was terrific and was not bothered by > the viewfinder. While I suspect that I am in a small minority, I > could not deal with the lack of control resulting from the G2 > autofocus -- although it was accurate even with the 90. There is no > way to scale focus the camera, for example. I much prefer an all > manual camera and I found that if you shop carefully, you can pick up > a used M6 reasonably. I have a Canon G2 digital and do not use it a > great deal for the same reason. > > The upside of all you guys switching to digital is that there are > great deals on a wide range of film cameras -- Canon FD lenses for > example are almost give-aways. > > Steve > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" > <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote: > > No question, Bob, regarding the cost of things Leica. The Contax > glass is > > top-flight...I just didn't personally like the viewfinder of the > G1...never > > looked at the G2. A nice car for the difference? Dunno about that, > but my > > wallet would have certainly appreciated your opinion several years > ago! <g> > > > > Alan Huntley > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bob Michaels" <bob@b...> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:43 PM > > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > > > > > I certainly respect Alan's opinion and sure don't want to get a > Leica > > M vs. Contax G debate going. So I'll just add that I'm very happy > > shooting my Contax G1 and G2 bodies with Zeiss 21mm Biogon, 28mm > > Biogon, 35mm Planar, 45mm Planar and 90mm Sonnar lenses. Price that > in > > the Leica equivalent. The difference will get you a nice car to get > > somewhere to shoot.
2004-02-18 by santacruztacean
> Steve: Just so you know, I'm keeping my Nikon FE2 with its > complement of primes for just such manual control for when the G2 > doesn't suit. For some reason, I don't like manual focusing on > rangefinder cameras. It's just too non-intuitive for me. > > -Robert Robert - It took me a long uncomfortable time to adjust to the Leica M - I have always used plain- matte groundglass in the Nikon/Hasselblad/Rollei. Now that I'm older, I'm grateful for the rangefinder, and have recently had to replace all my ground glass with split-image screens. Now I'm having a hard time adjusting to the split-image. It's always something.... Phil
2004-02-18 by Mr_Misty_44
One more variable I might mention for those talking about B&W film and rangefinder cameras. I have two M4's as well as a couple of Minolta CLE's. All fine cameras. I recently purchased a New Voightlander R2(made by Cosina). I find that the build is not up to Leica standards but what is. It is mechanical with a built in meter. I have the accessory trigger winder. The camera has a BRIGHT finder with a great rangefinder. I find I'm using it almost exclusively these days. With a body price of 470.00 and the ability to use my "M" and screw mount Leica Lenses as well as several of their own, quite nice, optics I think I'm happy. Epson/Cosina will be introducing a DIGITAL version of this camera as well although I really like film and appreciate the permanance of it. Electronics improve by quantum leaps but film is there already and is more perminant than the electronic image. John H
2004-04-11 by Richard Sintchak
Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 10:02:52 AM, you wrote: AH> Robert, AH> I would highly recommend a used Leica M over any Contax G2. Just a AH> thought........ AH> Alan Huntley Why? -- Best regards, Richard mailto:richard@...
2004-04-11 by Stephen Kobrin
Richard, I sold my Contax G2 outfit and bought a used Leica M6. As I am not sure this is of general interest, please contact me off list if you are interested. Steve --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Sintchak <richcontaxg@s...> wrote: > > Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 10:02:52 AM, you wrote: > > AH> Robert, > > AH> I would highly recommend a used Leica M over any Contax G2. Just a
> AH> thought........ > > AH> Alan Huntley > > Why? > > -- > Best regards, > Richard mailto:richard@c...
2004-04-11 by Mark Hahn
both will take an excellent photo, it is just a personal choice. Personally, I find the G1 & G2 to be the worst mix of auto-everything and manual (not to mention the poor viewfinder) and would also go with the M-something over the Contax, but there are many many people who love their Contax. If you can get buy with the feature set of the G1 it can be a heck of a bargain. Again, both will take a stunning photo and it is just a matter of what *you* like better. mark --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Sintchak <richcontaxg@s...> wrote: > > Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 10:02:52 AM, you wrote: > > AH> Robert, > > AH> I would highly recommend a used Leica M over any Contax G2. Just a
> AH> thought........ > > AH> Alan Huntley > > Why? > > -- > Best regards, > Richard mailto:richard@c...
2004-04-11 by Richard Sintchak
Sunday, April 11, 2004, 4:00:33 PM, you wrote: SK> Richard, SK> I sold my Contax G2 outfit and bought a used Leica M6. As I am not SK> sure this is of general interest, please contact me off list if you SK> are interested. SK> Steve SK> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Sintchak SK> <richcontaxg@s...> wrote: >> >> Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 10:02:52 AM, you wrote: >> >> AH> Robert, >> >> AH> I would highly recommend a used Leica M over any Contax G2. SK> Just a >> AH> thought........ >> >> AH> Alan Huntley >> >> Why? >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Richard mailto:richard@c... Steve, For sure a Leica/Contax debate is not of interest to this debate (nor practically anywhere IMO). They're both great cameras with great lenses and differ enough in handling and lens character to where people will have their own opinions and feelings about them. I have a G2 and love it but am also planning on getting an M body and a couple M lenses too---not to replace, but to achieve a different result. I was just curious why Alan was giving a one-liner advice/opinion as to a Leica being better than the G2 when he says in another post that he "never looked at the G2". Maybe it's an opinion he's sure he'd have if he had ever looked at or used the G2? ;-) -- Best regards, Richard mailto:richard@...
2004-04-11 by A. Huntley
Hi Richard, I guess the short answer probably stems from my being a fairly longtime user of Leica Ms. I tried the Contax G2, briefly, when it first came out and didn't like the viewfinder at all. I use the HM Leicas and, by comparison, the G2 made me feel as if I was peering through a tiny hole. Quite a bit darker, too. I did very much like the results, though, from the excellent glass available for that camera. Alan Huntley
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Sintchak" <richcontaxg@...> To: "A. Huntley" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:19 PM Subject: Re[2]: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 10:02:52 AM, you wrote: AH> Robert, AH> I would highly recommend a used Leica M over any Contax G2. Just a AH> thought........ AH> Alan Huntley Why? -- Best regards, Richard mailto:richard@... Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. Please follow these basic guidelines: - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice. - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership. - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. Yahoo! Groups Links
2004-04-11 by Richard Sintchak
Sunday, April 11, 2004, 4:15:35 PM, you wrote: MH> both will take an excellent photo, it is just a personal choice. MH> Personally, I find the G1 & G2 to be the worst mix of auto-everything MH> and manual (not to mention the poor viewfinder) and would also go MH> with the M-something over the Contax, but there are many many people MH> who love their Contax. If you can get buy with the feature set of MH> the G1 it can be a heck of a bargain. Again, both will take a MH> stunning photo and it is just a matter of what *you* like better. MH> mark Thanks for the reply Mark. I could not agree more. Sounds like your opinion was based on personal use and experience. The best kind of opinion. -- Best regards, Richard mailto:richard@...
2004-04-12 by Richard Sintchak
Sunday, April 11, 2004, 4:39:20 PM, you wrote: AH> Hi Richard, AH> I guess the short answer probably stems from my being a fairly longtime user AH> of Leica Ms. I tried the Contax G2, briefly, when it first came out and AH> didn't like the viewfinder at all. I use the HM Leicas and, by comparison, AH> the G2 made me feel as if I was peering through a tiny hole. Quite a bit AH> darker, too. AH> I did very much like the results, though, from the excellent glass available AH> for that camera. AH> Alan Huntley Makes sense. Thanks. I too long for a better viewfinder for my G2 and it's why I'll adding an M body to my collection before too long. I want it for the quieter shutter and easier use in low light. Meanwhile I still love my G2 as I find it lighting fast for focus and I get some nice street shots I would have probably not gotten otherwise. Plus my affection of the unbelievable sharpness and contrast I get from the 45 Planar and 28 Biogon. Yet I yearn for the look I see one can get with the 50 M lenses too. Which is why I want to add that to my arsenal as well. Struggling a bit as to whether I should get a Bessa R2, or a user M2 or M3. Even a user M2/3 can be a pretty penny. Hoping to find a real ugly but working one sometime for cheap. Then it will be on to which 50 M lens I should get! -- Best regards, Richard mailto:richard@...
2004-04-12 by Bob Michaels
I love my Contax G system for all the same reasons as Richard: image quality & autofocus that's spot on 99% of the time. But there is another factor. I have $2,100 invested in two bodies, 21mm Biogon, 28mm Biogon, 35mm Planar, 45mm Planar & 90mm Sonar (mostly all used). For that same amount of money, I could buy one M6 body and one lens. The Contax system is not perfect all the time. I considered a Leica in addition but when I added up the costs, I decided to buy a car instead. Bob Michaels --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Sintchak <richcontaxg@s...> wrote: > > Sunday, April 11, 2004, 4:39:20 PM, you wrote: > > AH> Hi Richard, > > AH> I guess the short answer probably stems from my being a fairly longtime user > AH> of Leica Ms. I tried the Contax G2, briefly, when it first came out and > AH> didn't like the viewfinder at all. I use the HM Leicas and, by comparison, > AH> the G2 made me feel as if I was peering through a tiny hole. Quite a bit > AH> darker, too. > > AH> I did very much like the results, though, from the excellent glass available
> AH> for that camera. > > AH> Alan Huntley > > Makes sense. Thanks. I too long for a better viewfinder for my G2 and > it's why I'll adding an M body to my collection before too long. I > want it for the quieter shutter and easier use in low light. Meanwhile > I still love my G2 as I find it lighting fast for focus and I get some > nice street shots I would have probably not gotten otherwise. Plus my > affection of the unbelievable sharpness and contrast I get from the 45 > Planar and 28 Biogon. Yet I yearn for the look I see one can get with > the 50 M lenses too. Which is why I want to add that to my arsenal as > well. > > Struggling a bit as to whether I should get a Bessa R2, or a user M2 > or M3. Even a user M2/3 can be a pretty penny. Hoping to find a > real ugly but working one sometime for cheap. Then it will be on to > which 50 M lens I should get! > > -- > Best regards, > Richard mailto:richard@c...
2004-04-12 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Bob Michaels writes: > I considered a Leica in addition but when I added up > the costs, I decided to buy a car instead. It depends on where you live. In Paris, a Leica is a better investment than a car, since the city is very photogenic, and public transportation is excellent. A Leica is considerably cheaper, too.
2004-04-12 by Ernst Dinkla
It may be important to keep an eye on what lens type will fit a digital rangefinder in the future. Though the Epson RD1 isn't exactly the ideal digital rangefinder in features (and most likely in price) it shows that some lenses will be obsolete when that type of digital camera is more widely introduced. Retrofocus wide angles will be required, Elmar's that go too far in the body are not recommended either etc. The Voigtlaender lenses will fit. Another camera isn't mentioned; the Konica Hexar RF. The debate about the flange distance has been solved it seems. Robert White has a nice deal on that now no longer produced camera, his Bessa prices are not bad either. I'm waiting for the Konica-Minolta Hexar digital rangefinder with the antishake APS sensor. That's not even a rumour now :-) Till then my Iskra MF folder rangefinder is good enough. Someone gave me his Jobo ATL 1000 film developing machine and I'm back to B&W film for the time being. Ernst
2004-04-12 by Alan.Huntley@cox.net
Richard, I did, in fact, play with a G2 for a little while. Did I give it a fair chance? Probably not, because I didn't own it and use it for an extended period of time. However, IMO, anyone who has been actively shooting for a fairly long time, with different cameras, will just know quite quickly whether some new camera is going to help you achieve your goals. I didn't feel the G2 was going to give me anything that my trusted Leica Ms didn't. Therefore, I didn't persue it any further. Alan Huntley
> > From: Richard Sintchak <richcontaxg@...> > Date: 2004/04/11 Sun PM 07:37:56 EDT > To: Stephen Kobrin <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > I was just curious why Alan was giving a one-liner advice/opinion as > to a Leica being better than the G2 when he says in another post that > he "never looked at the G2".
2004-04-12 by Alan.Huntley@cox.net
Richard, Definitely do not rule out the Bessa body. I have not personally used one, but have heard from longtime Leica folks--who's opinions that I respect--that the Bessa series (and glass, for that matter) are pretty damn nice. If you decide on going with used Leica--M2/M3--I would first decide on your primary need. If you will be primarily shooting wideangle, I would go with the M2; however, if the 50 to, say, 90, will be more your speed get the M3. The old double strokes are nice, but M3 with serial numbers near or above 1 mil are considered the "best" of this breed. Dunno...we're talking with the Leitz family still owned the business...they're all good! As for which 50...again, what kind of image do you prefer? If you lean more toward "brass tacks"--snappy contrast, razor sharp lines, etc--go with the latest Summicron. If you prefer "softer" (I put that in quotes because they ain't soft as in not sharp!) "gentler" cutting of the image on film, get one of the slightly older Summicrons before the latest series. Then, of course, there's the collapsible Elmar...the dual-range Summicron...damn, all these choices! Good luck with whatever you decide. Alan Huntley
> > From: Richard Sintchak <richcontaxg@...> > Date: 2004/04/11 Sun PM 08:07:33 EDT > To: "A. Huntley" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re[4]: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > Struggling a bit as to whether I should get a Bessa R2, or a user M2 > or M3. Even a user M2/3 can be a pretty penny. Hoping to find a > real ugly but working one sometime for cheap. Then it will be on to > which 50 M lens I should get!
2004-04-12 by Alan.Huntley@cox.net
Bob, Agreed that the Leica Ms ain't cheap, but, if you've never experienced handling one I would venture to say that you're missing an experience. Clean users--not the ones collectors go after--are not that terribly expensive...you might think about it. I'm sure the autofocus on the Contax is fast, but nothing beats a pre-focused camera! With a lense like the 35mm Summicron, one learns to set focus with the small tab without even looking at the camera! Alan Huntley
> > From: "Bob Michaels" <bob@...> > Date: 2004/04/11 Sun PM 08:23:31 EDT > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Do most of you still shoot b&w on film? > > I love my Contax G system for all the same reasons as Richard: image > quality & autofocus that's spot on 99% of the time. > > But there is another factor. I have $2,100 invested in two bodies, > 21mm Biogon, 28mm Biogon, 35mm Planar, 45mm Planar & 90mm Sonar > (mostly all used). For that same amount of money, I could buy one M6 > body and one lens. > > The Contax system is not perfect all the time. I considered a Leica in > addition but when I added up the costs, I decided to buy a car instead. > > Bob Michaels