Digital BW, The Print

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]