Digital BW, The Print

Hi Jerry,

> > > I sure as hell can get better shadow and highlight detail than you can
> > > on film, if I process the image in photoshop.  Digital has a much
> > > greater range of tones than film.
> >
> > I disagree, but would like you to explain why you believe that.
>
> I believe it as I do it on a daily basis.

Digital does not have a much greater range of tones than film.  The exposure
latitude of film is larger than digital, at least the digital cameras and
backs I have.

> I have always been able to get
> much more out of photoshop and computer than a piece of film. I can't
> believe you can't.

I don't quite know what you mean by that.  Since I scan film, as well as use
digital cameras and backs, I find film has far better tonality in both
highlights and shadows than digital input.

What, exactly do YOU use PS for?  Why do you need to "manipulate"/"process"
the image?

> Why else would programs like photoshop be so popular
> if they couldn't do better than film?

Actually, I use PS simply for dust spotting very infrequently, but mostly
for simply printing to the Piezo plug-in, that's it.  Nothing else.  I do
all my setpoints and tonal corrections in the scanner driver.  Some people
find it better to scan in HDR mode (16 bit, HDR means High Dynamic Range
BTW) and do the setpoints and tonal curves in PS...but I have no need to.

Also, I don't sharpen...I have no need to, as I've said...

> > Well, my scanner is 10 years old, and they sell for $2k now...
>
> And it was how much ten years ago?

$16k

Austin