Digital BW, The Print

You also lose out on smoothness and shadow detail. You can also add
grain in
Photoshop that looks exactly like film grain. There are many ways to do it.

Jerry





Nicholas Hartmann wrote:

> Greetings -
>
> I've been lurking on this list, and previously on several others related to
> digital imaging, for a few months now. Having learned a great deal from
> everyone -- for which many thanks -- and come to some conclusions, I
> thought I would briefly describe my experience in case it's useful to
> anyone else starting out.
>
> I take pictures with a 35mm camera on Kodak TMax 400 film, developed in
> TMax developer. For a number of years I printed on both Agfa Multicontrast
> 8x10 RC paper (prints to give away and for my own file collection) and
> Ilford MG Fiber (for my "portfolio"). I have never sold a print as such,
> and have seldom been paid for a picture: I do this for my own reasons and
> to create pictures to give to other people.
>
> Darkroom work is something I have had to shoehorn in between work and the
> rest of my life, and the time and tedium of setting up, washing, drying,
> spotting, etc., not to mention the cost of materials and darkroom rental,
> were getting to me. I have therefore ended up with the following digital
> equipment set: a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II (2820 ppi), Photoshop 6.0 on
> an iMac, and an Epson 1160 printer. The scanner produces excellent results:
> I can see the grain of my negatives (which I like a lot; see below), and
> that grain is pin-sharp corner to corner. The printer appears sturdy and
> reliable. I have a lot to learn about Photoshop, but already I can
> manipulate images to create a more balanced print than I ever learned to
> make under the enlarger.
>
> What I have not ended up with, to my surprise, is _any_ of the quadtone B&W
> inksets. Having tried the Epson OEM color inks (weird color casts), PiezoBW
> (too brown, too much nozzle clogging, too expensive), and the MIS
> variable-tone inkset (best of the bunch), I found that I simply do not like
> the grainless "large-format" look that quadtones produce on paper. My
> pictures are often about expressions and gestures and fleeting events, and
> seldom depend on sheer technical excellence for their impact; I like 35mm
> for that reason, and I like the way a good lens retains its sharpness down
> into the film's visible grain.
>
> So what I _am_ going to use is just the black cartridge on my 1160, by
> simply selecting "black" rather than "color" in the Print dialog. I will be
> trying out both Generations and the MIS double-density black in an effort
> to get maximum depth. Yes, I will see tiny little dots in the highest-value
> areas; but I need to look very closely and in any case they don't bother
> me. I am accustomed, after all, to understanding a picture as a pattern of
> tiny black dots of silver on a sheet of white paper. The results on Epson
> Heavyweight Matte (for now) are just what I'm looking for: a
> black-and-white image that retains the distinctive look of 35mm but with
> all the flexibility of Photoshop adjustments and desktop output.
>
> Are there any other 35mm photographers out there who feel as I do? or is
> everyone else happy with, and striving to achieve, that smooth big-negative
> look? Am I alone in my deplorable practice of just using the black
> cartridge?
>
> Thank you all again for the enormously valuable information you are
> providing. I look forward to more stimulating discussions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> -- Nick
>
> NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
> 611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
> Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...
>
> Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English
>
>
> The Group Homepage can be found at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/