Digital BW, The Print

Hi Jerry,

> Austin, this is contrary to everything I have ever read about digital
> images. The one thing that has almost universal agreement is that
> digital has a much wider tonal range and latitude than film.

I believe you are confusing overall latitude, which digital does have, vs,
"instantaneous" latitude, as in for a particular scene/setting etc.  For
example, digital sensors can adjust such that they can see in very dark
scenes, like a digital video camera does.  But, that doesn't mean it has a
wider overall response.

> > 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.
>
> Time to get some better equipment, Austin :)

Well, that's not the problem ;-)

> Most people can get much wider tonal ranges from digital.

Not in a single image.

> > > 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.
>
> You are in the minority.

We may be in a semantic "game" here again...just like your issue with
"sharpness", which I contend isn't the issue, but you're having trouble
seeing why I say that.

> >
> > What, exactly do YOU use PS for?  Why do you need to
> "manipulate"/"process"
> > the image?
>
> I use it for every image I print. You surely don't think you can get
> such nice images right out of a camera, do you?

Er, I do.

> I do burning and dodging
> techniques that simply cannot be done in a darkroom.

I never burn or dodge at all these days, and haven't had to for years.  The
only time I did that in the darkroom was when I made a mistake in exposure
or development.

> Also color
> corrections, and of course the touch up and addition and removal of
> little things, like twigs, leaves, etc., that simply don't belong in a
> nice landscape.

That I understand for your use, I simply don't need it.

> > > 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 everything in Photoshop. I love it. It is a creative
> person's dream program.

Hum.  I don't believe I'd say it that way.  I'm quite creative, but I do my
creating in the scene/exposure/development etc.  I have no need to create
outside the image that is on film, it's final in and of it self...

> > Also, I don't sharpen...I have no need to, as I've said...
>
> So no sharpening program can make any of your images any sharper.  I
> just don't buy it.

I didn't say that, sure you can make them "sharper", but to what good?  You
lose tonality, and then the image is degraded.  I believe you are really
overplaying the "sharp" issue.

> > > > Well, my scanner is 10 years old, and they sell for $2k now...
> > >
> > > And it was how much ten years ago?
>
> I have a couple scans made on a leaf scanner. And they sure did get
> sharper when I sharpened them in photoshop!!!

How do you know that was the scanner, and not the original film?

Also, are you talking B&W (after all, this IS a B&W list, now isn't it ;-)?
If you are talking color, yes, color images from CCD scanners do typically
like to be sharpened somewhat, simply because they use red and blue
channels, which are typically fuzzy due to the way CCDs respond to those two
colors.

Regards,

Austin